PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 19946, 24 July 1936, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

l FINANCE BILL DEBATE. I JUDIGATURE AMENDMENT. PARTICIPATION 0F LA\VYERS. (By Telegraph—Special to Times.) WELLINGTON, Friday. All seats in the public galleries were occupied for the opening in the llouse of llepreScntatives to—night of the second reading debate on the Finance Bill, which provides in the main for the t‘Estortttion of depression cuts in the salaries and wages of members of the Public Service and workers generally. Discussion was initiated by the Min~ ister of Finance, the lion. \\'. Nash. who said the Government‘s policy had a two—fold object—to increase pro—duction and to improve the standard 01‘ living. lie was followed by the . Leader of the Opposition, the [light ’ lion. U. \V. Forbes, who contrasted conditions prevailing to-clay witli those 3' that existed at the time the reductions ' were made in 1931. 3 Shortly before the adjournment at ‘ 10.30 10.111. there was a display of feeling when .\[r \V. A, Bodkin (Op—- ? position—Central Otaso), suggested 3 that the clause in the Bill providing for the payment of expenses and allowf ances to members travelling on public l service at the request of the Minister. - might. be used to send Labour members into the .\lanukau electorate to take » I par: in the coming by—election for that 3 seat. 5| The afternoon was devoted to con.sideration of the Judicature Amend—ment Bill, a technical measure making provision for the hearing of civil ac—tions by juries. This Bill was introduced before the adjournment of Parliament for the mid-winter recess. References by the Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason, to some or the quaint and archaic features of ‘ legal procedure caused general amuse» 4 ment. The Bill was read a second time alter a colourless second reading debate in which nine speakers took part. 5 six of whom were members of the 5 legal profession. l a __.—... s ‘ JURV PROCEDURE. t PROPOSED ALTERATIONS. i [ MR LEE IN HAPPY MOOD. f \VELLINGTUN. Thursday. .' Aimed chiefly at restoring the right of trial by jury in certain civil cases, , and at restricting the appointment of special juries, the Judicature Amendment Bill, introduced into the House of HepreSentatives to—clay by the Attor< ney~General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason. drew comment from many members of the legal profession in the House. Prior to 1923 the position was that l i parties had greater rights to have cases ‘lti‘ied by juries than they had at pres—f ent. said the Attorney—General. The p proposal was to restore largely the rights that had existed before 1925. The procedure then was that in a claim for less than £SO the action was heard by a judge alone, in a claim for a ' sum between £SO and £SOO the action , could be heard by a Judge and a jury . of four, and where a sum over £SOO l was involved the case was heard by a ”Judge and a jury of 12. ‘ Left. to the Judgu. That system had worked quite well, but there was a provision that the ‘judges could from time to time alter the code of procedure. The position was that. although the jury system was established by Act of Parliament, it was in a form which left it to the judges to say whether or how far it should continue. As a result of a deci—sion by the judges in 192.3 the right ‘ of trial by jury had been seriously curtailed. The system of trial by special juries was also referred to by Mr Mason, who said that such juries might be needed in cases where expert know—ledge was required. in the regulations governing the appointment of special Juries there was reference to persons ”of the best condition." That certainly suggested some social prejudice and l 1 there had been a tendency to abuse the . special jury system when it was ”thought that such a prejudice might {‘be helpful to a particular party. i i “ Social Prejudice.” ll .\ir \V. P. Endcan (Opposition—- - l’arncll), said the present system of 'trial by a judge alone was in the ,‘bcst interests of litigants. lie re—:tgrettetl that the Atlui'iicy-t.icneral had lraised the question of social preju;idice in reference to the special jury -‘~ystem. That had nothing to do with - I the matter. - ln a humorous speech Mr J. A. Lee itiorcrninent—Urey Lynn), contended that when a judge rcuchctl the Bench he had lost the. capacity for physical living; .\ir Lee said he was always inclined to luuk asltance at the just man—the man who was so confident in his capacity to resist sin that “a developed self-righteousness to a fault. .\ir lire made happy play with the otllcial description of special jurors as men "01' the best condition.“ “ What chance has a slendciuwaisied man like thyself?“ he asked, “llow do we a measure a man in the best condition? l(Do we put the tall measure round his I l brow or round his middle? one might almost call it justice by aroirdupois. I “ Esquire " Defined. | “ Men with the title of esquire are .' eligible for seryice on special jut-leg, . What is an esqnire‘.’ Probably he is Ha man who owns a motor-car on the tunic—payment system. “he“ he buys itllls iiiotor-car the ilrin which sold it :‘i to him \vrilr's hint a letter calling him lil‘SQUll'L‘. \\'hrii he defaults in his ;:pa,\mcnt they write him a letter edits -:lllgl' him something else." I .\ir l-'. \\’. .\‘rhramm lllowrmnpm__ ~\lll'l\l.lllllEHM‘.\\-..\.]slllHtill \tippush , tinn—ticnti‘al Iltaco _ \\', .t. Broaili'tmt . itlppositionm\\'ailomn.. lt. ;\. “right ‘ lmleprntlrnlv~\\cllin:.j'tnn Suburbs) , .md .\. t;_ _\. Sexton lii.i..‘,(."m,m_ ‘l"l'.llll\llll . contributed to the debate. ‘ ' NOT GUILTY. H Ilt‘s not :uur mull you are nearing “While-..ievwtlti‘ |it\v s‘l-ll’ porn”; “I .hll' .-~]uw'l:ull}‘ tor \\ll|”H”_ b'ut “J” - can ,|\l|ll| middle-act» “I‘ll.“[hifi‘ Take ‘;.i,l|.l\'.£. nightly. with hot water .ind wipmuu. ilimrs iulriml. lii-“MHNS ”Pitt'- ‘ lito‘ and activity, Gemini» ””Ith Wm iptmlt for the “hite “"-ll't Label. Said t\\ coils‘ Hl'E‘d' Peppermint cure ‘ for Influenza colds