The Aelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1866.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 172, 22 September 1866, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1866.

The question of compensation to jurors was brought forward by Colonel Peacock iu the Legislative Council, a few days ago. His motion was to the effect that common jurymen under summons from the Supreme Court, ought to receive some moderate sum per diem, as compensation ior their loss of time and ihe expense entailed upon them, by remaining away from their usual places of abode, during the sittings of the court. He mcutioned that, he had observed many instances of the inconveniences and hardships to which pour men had been exposed, aud of the miseries to whioh their families had been subjected by their protracted abseuce from the ordinary occupations by which they provided the menus oi' subsistence to themselves and families. In Victoria some action had been taken in the matter, and one ofthe New Zealand judges had expressed his disapproval of the present system. In opposition to the- motion it was alleged that as common jurymen were not paid in England, which ought to be taken as a model in al! colonial matters, it would not bo judicious to pay them here. As a large class of citizens were bound to discharge certain duties to their country without pay, there was no reason why common jurymen should be made au exception to the rule, especially as economy was the order of the day, aud the country was now making great efforts to escape from the great expend it ure that had been forced upon it. The Attorney-General took v. view oftho question favorable to the interests of common jurymen, and promised that, if tlie motion were withdrawn, lie would endeavor during tlie recess Lo learn the merits of the case with a view to the providing of a remedy, should a great evil be found to exist. He said, amongst the legal profession the impression prevailed that there should be but, one jury list, and that the class of .v.-.-.or.f-. to serve as special jurors should be extracted is»^ su**.* li-=!. For his own part he did not see why speci:.! J 1 e. rors should be paid a o-uiuoa a day. while common jurymen received nothing. We think tbe Attorney-General has spoken like a sensible man in expressing his desire to abolish the distinction betweeu special and common jurymen, or at any rate that one list should serve ihe purpose, and the specials, if tbere are to bc such, be extracted from such list. It must, be an invidious task for the person who summons the jury to have to determine sometimes who are common and who are special, what amount of education aud mouey Brown .tlio special possesses, and to what extent Jones the commoner is excluded by the accidents of poverty and ignorance from the high distinction. It must be difficult sometimes to define the degree of respectability which entitles a man to be considered special, and painful to come to the conclusion that another equally intelligent and virtuous, but uot possessing the same amount of cash must take his place in the jury box with the common herd. The mother country is not to be copied in everything, and this expression of opinion coming from the Attorney-General warrants the conclusion that the invidious distinction of common aud special, Avhich obtains in a country where a wealthy lauded aristocracy exists, is no longer considered necessary in the colonies, where, if one man is-not as good as another, and better too, the attempt to create unnecessary distinctions can be attended only with inconvenience and annoyance.

It seems a harsh, unfair, and arbitrary thing that a special juror should be paid for his time, while the common juror must submit to rem aiu from his business or trade afc the discretion of the law officers, without receiving anything but thanks for the sacrifices he has made. One would suppose the reverse would obtain under an equitable system, aud that the poor tradesman would be paid for his time, whilst the man of leisure and means should be required to be content with the honor of the thing. It is all very well for a

well paid judge to preach the necessity of making sacrifices for the welfare of one's country, but common sense dictates that if any juryman is to be paid it is the poor common fellow, whose time is of immense importance to himself and family, and nofc the favored individual to whom time is no object aud whose purse is well lined. We are glad to find the Attorney-General including amongst his meditated reforms of the jury system, the abolition of the absurdity that a special juryman should get his guinea a day, while one serving ou the common jury should be expected to work for nothing.