South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1883.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3108, 19 March 1883, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1883.

Tueiie is a farcical side to almost everything and trial by jury is no exception to the rule. It is quite clear that this time-honored institution is not rising in popular estimation. There is a principle of justice about it, but the end sought is not attained with unfailing regularity. It is the means of letting too many guilty persons escape, that is quite clear. The custom of requiring ail the links to be complete in a chain of direct evidence, and of disallowing or attaching no importance to circumstantial testimony is not one likely to promote public morality. The greatest authorities on the subject take this view of it. And in reality, the trial of a man by jury means his trial by one or two prominent minds of the jury or virtually by the judge who sums up the evidence and directs the jury. It is just a question, as the judge analyses the testimony and sets the case fairly for those who are to decide, whether he himself would not be. more likely to give the right verdict; whether, in fact, it might not be worth while to increase the number of judges and dispense with juries and order that certain classes of offences should be tried by one or more judges according to their gravity. We refer of course to the criminal jurisdiction of our Courts. With regard to the civil business of the Courts, we have not the faintest shadow of doubt that the jury system is wholly needless. The ridiculous aspect of trial by jury was well illustrated in the District Court on Saturday. Patrick Ryan was indicted on two charges of fraudulent bankruptcy. The jury in the former case, after two hours retirement, informed His Honor that they could not possibly come to an agreement, and were again sent to their room for further consideration. In the meantime a further case against the same prisoner was called, and the erapannelling of a jury proceeded. Thereupon, after four jurymen had seated themselves, began the farce. The right of challenge was freely exercised by both sides, every Irishman being objected to by the prosecution, and every business man by the defence; a talcs was prayed, and finally jurors were gathered in from the “ highways and hedges.” The performance lasted an hour. Now this may be in keeping with the intention of the system of trial by jury, but it leads to great waste of time, and general inconvenience, and it is monstrous to take for granted that conscientious men are unable to separate themselves from the tie of nationality or the thought of personal

obligation when trying a prisoner. The right of challenge as it now exists is an abuse. There ought to be very substantial grounds shown for rejecting a juror. We assume that ordinary persons whose names appear on the jury list are conscientious men who have regard to the oath they are calk d upon to make when entering the box, and that any one knowing himself to have a special bias would be careful to inform the Court of the fact. The system is not satisfactory, but we are not prepared with a substitute for trial by jury. In the meantime, however there is no reason why some amendment should not be made, whereby this ancient and honored system may be rejuvenated or adapted to the altered conditions of the age.