The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1889.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4559, 7 June 1889, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1889.

The case of Silcock v. Geraldine County Council is so far settled that we may venture on tbe following remarks. Certain law points, including tbc question of penalties, will bo argued and decided m Christchnrcb, and with regard to them we bave nothing to say. Tbe verdict was a general one, and we are at a loss to discover why tbe jury found for the precise sum tbey named. Of coarsQ a similar question occurs m a good many cases wbich come before tbe courts, and occasionally tbe jury are compelled to find arbitrarily. If they were not to do so there could be no verdict. But m Silcock v. Geraldine County Council tbe jury were not m that position. There were two sets of figures and data to go on, and a logical and proper verdict conld be based only on one set or tbe other ; or partly on one and partly on the other. That is to Bay, the jury were bound to accept as true either tbe whole of plaintiff's case or tbe whole of defendants; or to accept a portion of both. In any case the finding should bave been a pure matter of calculation, based on those portions of the evidence wbich tbe jury believed. We do not assert tbiit, the verdict was not of that character, but nevertheless nobody seems able to understand how the precise sum of £i6G 10s Cd was arrived at. We have heard it said that practically " the jury split the difference," and though that was certainly not exactly the case, tbe remark indicates an idea that tbe finding was a compromise, and not, as we again say it should bave been, tho outcome of arithmetic based on such evidence as was adduced at the trial. There would be no barm m the foreman or sonic of the other jurymen enlightening the public on tbe point. In fact it would be an excellent thing to remove the , impression, if indeed it can be removed, 1 that the jury worked out the result by 1 the rule oE thumb, or by some other , process not known to Cocker. What , gives forco to our remarks is t,bis : t Although we bave admitted that it was 1 competent for tbe jury to believe a port ion of plaintiff's case and a portion of defendant's, it is very difficult to understand bow thnt could hiivp been so ia

I relation to the conflicting evidence given by the Measrs Fooks, on the one band, and by Messrs Meason and Marchant, on the other. It may truly be said that the case ought to have hinged on the belief of the jury m tbe credibility of those -witnesses. "Were the Messrs Fooks right, or were Messrs Meason and Marchant ? Tbe verdict tallies with the evidence of neither. If the firstnamed gentlemen measured and calculated right, the plaintiff wbs entitled to a far larger Bum than was awarded him ; if the council's engineers were right, he should have had mnch less. It must be remembered that m using the worda " much less,"' we are not taking into account the question of penalties. Supposing the council's engineei'3 to have been right, and supposing tbe question of penalties to have been settled m favour of the defendants, then the plaintiff would have been entitled to less than nothing. It is very difficult to believe that, after their two measurements and their two careful calculations, such men as Messrs Meason and Marchant, engineers of repute, were m error at all, but that is not tbe point we are dealing with. We, and many of the public, fail to see how the precise sum fixed upon by the jury was arrived at, and it is certainly uncomfortable, where the funds of a local governing body are involved, to be harassed by a suspicion that the jury might have come to a different conclusion if they bad trusted entirely to the weight of the evidence. At present there is quite a rush of honourable members anxious to meet their constituents before the commencement of the session. The speeches havo been kept back to a later period than usual, and now that we arc getting them, there are but few of them Jindeed which contain anything of importance. Mr Ballance spoke tit Wanganui on Wednesday night, and the face that he is an ex-Minister and one of the representatives who must be taken into account m future political combinations imparts a considerable degree of interest to biß utterances. There are many points upon which we differ with the member for Wanganui, and we dislike him as a politician because he is prone to fads, and, like Sir Robert Stout, has n reputation for instability. We agree with him, however, m thinking that the reduction of the number of members of the House of Representatives was a mistake, and that it would have been better to have left the old arrangements untouched, and to have practically reduced the number m the future by not altering it as the population increased. Tbe present number of members might have served the requirements of tbe country for the nest twenty-five yeais. Mi- Ballance is reported to have said that the reduction m the number of members meant greater expense, as the districts wonld be enlarged ; and that the measure had been proposed for tbe purpose of giving greater power to tbe Conservative party. The expense to the State would not be greater as far as we can see, but it no doubt would be greater to tbe candidates, who wonld necessarily have to travel longer distances, hold more meetings, and generally make more complex arrangements. We So not believe for a moment that tbe reduction of members was brought forward for tbe purpose of strengthening what Mr Ballance cnlls the Conservative party. The Liberals were jußt aa nnxious for the change as any other section of New Zealand politicians; but at tbe same time we admit that larger districts are likely to give an advantage to the wealthier cla63es a k , tbe hustings. Mr Ballance of course had a good word to say for the new tariff. For some years he has been an out and out protectionist, aud we confidently expect th»t if he gets into office again he will lend his influence towards bringing about still heavier duties. A remark which he made m a speech a few years ago will not readily be forgotten : — "If 20 per cent will not do [that is, will not enable colonial manufacturers to live] we must have 40, and if that will not do, we must have 50." He is still prepared to go to extremes, and is quite incapable of seeing the force of any argument on the other side. We are glad to notice that he condemned tbe provision m Mr Fisher's Education Bill for doing away with Education Boards, and that be characterised the reduction of the capitation to Volunteers as an injnstice. "If they were not," bo said, " worthy of being allowed tho cost of their clothing they had better be done away with altogether." Thn speech though generally condemnatory of the Government was moderate m tone.