WOMEN JURORS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 10 July 1923, Page 7

WOMEN JURORS.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. . PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM WELLINGTON, Monday. In the House of Kepresentatives this . afternoon tire Hon. (J. J. Parr moved the second- reading of the Junes Amendment Bill, which he said ■was mainly the result of a ! suggestion made by the - depart- !; mental omcers. In civil cases wnere a common jury was 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 twelve. Of this it was proposed to make the parties to the action pay *£4 peiyday. In civil cases; withdrawn from nearing after the jury had been called the litigants would be expected to pay for the jury, but a refund of the jury fees* would be made if reasonable notice was given and the case does not go before the jury. The Bill was largely a machinery measure. Mr Wiliord intimated that in the committee he would move an amendment providing for the appointment of women jurors. - Mr* Holland supported the proposed amendment, but. objected to the Crown’s right of unlimited challenge in criminal cases. j The Hon. J. A. Hanan thought that New Zealand should lead the van in according women their right to serve on juries. Mr It. A. Wright admitted the right of women to serve on juries, but felt, as a practical measure, it would be un- ■ wise, and one which women did not desire. Mr P. Fraser said that every women’s society in New Zealand which had given any thought to the matter was in favour of women being permitted to sit as jurors. " t Mr W. A. Veitch objected to the >33111 because it increased the cost of justice to the people. Mr L. M. Isitt ■ said that he would vote to affirm the principle of women jurors, but. they could not lightly put aside the objections to this course; and if it ever were put into force it would have to he very carefully safeguarded. Mr T. K. Sidey said that as the Bill increased the fees to litigants it wan only another form of taxation, which was steadily mounting up. He favoured the-right being given to women to sit on juries, as their societies had asked for it I Mr A. L. Monteith (Wellington East) said that if women were given the responsibility of sitting on juries there would, bs no difficulty about its administration. . , The Hon. C. J. Parr, in reply, said that there had been very little criticism of the Bill itself. It had been saidthat it was a taxing Bill. That was not so The fees asked for would not come out of the pockets of the people, but from the litigants, who were wealthy enough to have a case adjourned over £SOO. Even after tliis statement by litigants, the State would still be some £l2 per day out of pocket. He defended the right of challenge-by the Crown, which was not unfair to the prisoner, hut was a precaution m the interests of justice. Cases in which a prisoner suffered injustice because or the Crown’s right of challenge were iaie indeed. As far as women jurors weie concerned, he pointed out that service would be compulsory, and. that m the great majority of cases it would be exceedingly irksome, especially to motheis $ young families. There were many •walks of the Public Service m which women can serve, but sitting on juries was not one of them. . The Bill was read a second time on thevoiees and referred to .the Statutes Revision Committee. |||in i