WOMEN ON JURIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10812, 31 January 1921, Page 6

WOMEN ON JURIES

A VEXED QUESTION REMARKABLE EXPERIENCE IN LONDON. SORDID DIVORCE DETAILS. By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright (Received January 29. 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, January 28. Four days’ divorce proceedings before, a mixed jury culminated in a disagreement for the second time. Sir E. Marshall Hall, K.C., who was appearing for the wife respondent, . remarked: “This is my first case before a mixed jury, arid I hope I may never have another.” Tito foreman stated that no question had arisen as between men and women jurors. Two married jury women described listening to letters connected with tho ease ns a terrible ordeal. Two unmarried iurywomen staged that the duties should be confined to married women above a certain age. Miss Barker, a juror who during tho war was superintendent of tho women munition workers at Woolwich, and is now prominent in connection with the women's employment movement, considers that women should sit on any case. She says: “It is no use talking of unpleasant details or Of makingdistinctions between married and unmarried women.” THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES. • LONDON,, January 28. There have been some interesting phases in tlio advent of mixed juries in the Divorce Court. One woman juror pleaded to be excused from service on the ground that she had an imperative engagement concerning women’s unemployment. Corunsel agreed to continue with eleven jurors. The judge emphasised that women must accept the same responsibilities as men. A wife figuring in a divorce suit appealed to the women jurors, saying: “I know you will understand a mother’s feelings, even if men cannot.”