COST OF JURIES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16174, 10 July 1923, Page 7

COST OF JURIES.

LITIGANTS TO BEAR PROPORTION

PLEA FOR WOMEN JURORS. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. The Hon. Mr Parr moved the second reading of the Juries Amendment Bill, which he said was mainly the result ul a suggestion made by the Departmental officers. In civil cases where a common jury is employed, the parties to the case are asked to bear part of the cost of the jury. At present it cost the State £8 per day for a. jury of 12. Ot this it is proposed to make the parties to an action pay £4 per day. In civil cases withdrawn from hearing after a jury has been called the litigant will bo "expected to pay for tho jury, but a refund of the jury fees will be made if reasonable notice be given and the case does not go before- a jury. The Bill was largely a machinery measure. Mr Wilford intimated in committee he would move an amendment providing for tho appointment of women jurors. Mr Holland supported the proposed amendment,, but objected to the (Town's right of unlimited challenge in criminal cases.

The Hon. J. A. liana- thought New Zealand should lead the van in accord ing women their right to serve on juries. Mi - Wright admitted the right of women to servo on juries, but felt as a practical, measure it was unwise, and ono which women did not desire. Mr Fraser said every woman’s society in New Zealand which had given any thought to the matter was in favor ot women being permitted to sit as jurors. Mr Veitch objected to the Bill because it increased the cost of justice to the people. Mr Isitt said he. would vote to affirm the principle of women jurors, but they could not lightly put- aside objections to this course, ami if it was ever put into force it would have to lie very carefully safeguarded. Mr Sidey said as the Bill increased the fees of litigants it was only another form of taxation, which was steadily mounting up. Ho favored the _ right, being given to women to sit on. juries, as their societies had asked for it. Mr Mon left h said if women were given tho responsibility of sitting on a jury, there would be no difficulty about its administration. . •

Tho Hon. C. «T. Parr, in his reply, said there had. been very litl-l© criticism of the Bill itself. . It had been said it was a taxing Bill. That was not so. The fees asked for would not come out of the pockets of the people, lmL from litigants who were wealthy enough to have cases amounting to over £SOO Even after tin's payment had been made by the litigants, the State would still he some £l2 per day out of pocket. He defended the right of challenge by the Crown, which was not unfair to the prisoner, but was a precaution in the laterals of justice. The cases in which a prisoner ,suffered injustice because of the Crown’s rights to challenge were rare indeed. So far as women jurors were concerned he pointed out that service would bo compulsory, and in the great majority of eases it would be exceedingly irksome, especially to mothers of young families. There were many walks of public service in which women •can serve, but sitting on juries) was not one of them. Tho Bill was read a second time on the voices, and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.