TRIAL BY JURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18947, 19 February 1925, Page 9

TRIAL BY JURY.

NEW RULES CRITICISED. "UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION-" INTENTIONS OF PARLIAMENT. The new rules made by the Judges depriving litigants in eases arising out of contract of their right to have the facts tried by a jury have roused snrpriso in legal circles and outspoken criticism ii. some quarters. Mr. W. J. Napier staled yesterday that the Judges had virtually "legislated" on a great matter of public policy. He regarded the action of the Judges as an unconstitutional invasion of the rights of tho people and their representatives in Parliament. Tho Judicature Act, when it was passed, conferred upon the .Tndgos power to make "rules," but it was well known that Parliament intended to givo such power only in matters of procedure of a simple character, and not to revolutionise ancient rights without Parliament having a voice. If tho Judges took away to-day the right to have juries in cases of contractftney might to-morrow tike away the right in cases of tort and thus effectively abolish the jury system. One of the greatest writers on constitutional law said that " thq ultimate aim of the English Constitution was to get twelve good men into a box," and that " the development of the system of trial by jnry has been regarded as one of the greatest achievements of English jurisprudence." If thia bo so, should not any proposed alteration be openly discussed by Parliament in tho light of day and r.ot resolved upon by a few public servants secretly. The right to a trial by a jury was one of the most sacred rights of a British citizen, and should only bo abolished by the people themselyes. He had no hesitation in saying that a jury was a very much better tribunal than a Judge in questions of fact. Though juries sometimes give eccentrio decisions, so do Judges, as everyone was human, and humannm est errare. To allow the Judges to virtually abolish a judicial system that authorities said was introduced by the Normans or earlier, would be to permit tho Judiciary to usurp the functions of Parliament, and to assume the power to govern tho nation in vitally important matters. It was true that in France there was no jury in civil cases, but wherever the English language is spoken, juries ir. civil cases as well as criminal, were part of the judicial system. Indeed, in the United States the jury system is part of the Federal Constitution. He trusted that when Parliament met, vigorous action would be taken to repeal the new rules •which had been sprung on the community and which constituted an attack, though unintended, upon tho liberties of the people.