EMPANELLING A JURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18964, 11 March 1925, Page 12

EMPANELLING A JURY.

DIFFICULTY AT GISBORNE. EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT. [ay TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT. ] GISBORNE. Tuesday. An action in which the Gisborne Sheepfarmers' Frozen Meat and Mercantile Company is defending a claim for damages has been responsible for some unusual features. When the case was called during last session of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Reed stated that he was unable to take the case, as he had some time previously purchased debentures in the company. The case proceeded to-day hefore Mr. Justice Alpers. When the jury was being empanelled, Mr. Hill, counsel fur plaintiff, exhausted his challenges. A juror who was subsequently called was an employee of the company. Mr. Hill said that although he had now no right 'of challenge, it would perhaps he better if the jury did not include an employee of the company. His Honor: it is difficult for a juror to be placed in the position of deciding M case between his employer and the plaintiff. Mr. Barnaul, counsel for defend. 1111, said there were other employees of the company on the list of juror:.. If the same rule were applied to all of them he would have no objection. His Honor; 1 am not at all apprehensive that the juror would not give a fair and just, verdict. 1 am thinking, however. of the mental comfort of a juror who might be placed in the invidious position of having to decide an action for or against his employers. What does the juror himself think about it ? The juror said he would leave il to His Honor to decide. His Honor: I have never been in such a position during my experience at the Bar, but I think it would he well for counsel to agree not to have any employees of the. company*on the jury. Counsel agreed to this course. Mr. Barnard then said that he had already challenged a juror who was an employee of the company, and lie asked that this should not count as a challenge. Mr. Hill: I challenged one. also. Inquiry showed that the juror to whom Mr. Hill referred was not an employee of the company, but a brother of an employee. His Honor: 1 am afraid we cannot exclude any juror who has a sister, courtn or aunt working for the. company, or we might never get a jury. Mr. Hill: I made a mistake in the name, Your Honor. I did challenge an employee, of the company. This was found to be correct, and it was agreed that the challenge should not count. The claim is for £1137 damages in respect of person 1! injuries sustained by John William Boniface, labourer. the allegation being that plaintiff was injured through defective protective apparatus surrounding an electric fan at. the freezing work'"-.