Trial by Jury.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7066, 27 July 1901, Page 4

Trial by Jury.

It is not merely by the process of "packing" in political and semipolitical cases that trial by jury in Ireland differs from that palladium of our liberties in England. Some of the Irish Judges bully and intimidate jurors in a manner which would never be tolerated in this .country. There was an instance of this atTullamore Quarter. Sessions the otherday, when a man was charged before County Court Judge Curran with the larceny of a sovereign. It was alleged that the prosecutor left the sovereign rolled up in a piece of paper on his kitchen table, whence it was stolen by the prisoner. One of the jurors was Mr Joseph Hume, a county councillor. He expressed the opinion that there was not sufficient proof that the sovereign was in the paper/and the following colloquy, ensued:—■:

' The Juror said : « That for all the witnesses know there might be only a shilling in the paper." The Judge : " If you give me any more of your impertinence I'll discharge the jury and fine you." The Juror: "Yes/your honour, but I must find "

The Judge : " You must: but you must, behave in a decent manner."

The Juror: "It is hard to find a man guilty in a case where the evidence goes to prove nothing is seen in the paper."

The Judge: "You will.find then in the teeth of the evidence."

The Juror made some remarks which were not audible at the Press box.

The Judge : " Then I discharge the jury and fine you £10. The prisoner will go on to the Assizes for trial."

Whether this juror's view of the case was reasonable or not is really immaterial. By the obligation of | his oath he was bound to form his own judgment upon tho facts, and it is a monstrous thing that a man conscientiously endeavouring to fulfil this duty should be brow-beaten and punished by the Judge. It is, indeed, astonishing to learn that a Judge has the power, even in Ireland, to fine a juryman who ventures to disagree with him. Such proceedings reduce trial by jury to an empty farce which can only have the effect of bringing the law into contempt and destroying all confidence in the administration of justice. The present is by no means the first occasion on which.the same judge has distinguished himself by his outrageous treatment of jurors, and I think it is-high time he received some much-needed instruction as to the duties of his office and tho limits ' of his authority.--London Truth. ' '