The Evening Star MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3029, 4 November 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1872.

Thkoky and practice arc very dillerent things, but nowhere is the divergence more marked than in the treatment of persons who arc summoned as jurymen. Acording to theory they act for the community, for whose protection courts of justice are instituted; they arc looked upon as independent citizens, selected without remuneration in any way adequate, to discharge the highest duties, under the most solemn obligation. The pecuniary sacrifice imposed by such attendance is always considerable, sometimes very great in proportion to income, and as issues not merely affecting property, but involving life and death, are at times submitted to their decision, the office of juryman confers an evident title to be treated with respect. In theory this is always recognised, and nothing can exceed the punctilious politeness of a judge delivering his charge. The manner in which he° thanks the Grand Jury for their discharge of duty—the deference he displays in receiving any presentment they may find—are usually models of courtesy. Nor are counsel behindhand in the mingled respect and civility with which they address a petty jury when once empanelled. In fact, any one sitting as juror for the first time is apt to feel a little elated to find the Judge and Bar alike placing such implicit reliance on liis intelligence and spotless integrity. So far therefore as soft and honied words go, jurymen have no cause for complaint, and assuming that they have no relish for buttered parsnips, they may be very well satisfied with their important position. But the practical treatment of juions is a very different

thing, and the carelessness with which their time is often wasted stands in marked contrast to the studied civility of the Judge’s summing up, and the addresses of counsel. When a juryman is required to sit on trial of a particular case, a notice to that elicet is served upon him, and he incurs a heavy , penalty if he fails to present himself on the day and at the hour named, lint it happens not untrequently that the case foi which he is summoned is postponed, and this postponement is known long before the day on which lie is required to appear. One would imagine, therefore, the least that could be done would be to send notice of the alteration of time, and thus prevent a number of gentlemen being called away from their businesses when their attendance is not required. The cost of informing each juryman need not exceed twopence-halfpenny. A. couple of thousand printed notices could be procured for a few shillings, and a penny would cover the postage. It must be considered that the mere loss of time to a merchant or professional man in making a fruitless visit to the Court-house, though considerable, is not the principal loss, for days, and perhaps for a week, before the person so summoned must always bear it in mind. He must enter into no engagements for that day, and if circumstances should arise requiring his presence elsewhere at some distance, he must postpone the visit, however urgent, until after his duties as juror have been discharged. It is true that the postponement of a case is sometimes announced in one or other of the newspapers, but such notices are easily overlooked, or, haply, the journal may not have been seen that night or morning, and it is hard to see why a large number of gentlemen should be allowed to take their chance of learning of the postponement through hearsay, or a casual mention in a newspaper, when the expenditure of a few coppers would suffice to apprise each juror that his services were not required that day. There are other points on which the treatment of jurymen is even worse, but in them the fault rests with the law rather than with those who administer it. When jurors fail to agree upon a verdict, or obtain the requisite majority, they are dealt with in a manner only one degree better than that to which criminals are subjected ; and the patent absurdity of this course becomes equal to its harshness when we reflect what the duties of a jury really are. In almost every civil case there is a mass of contradictory evidence, and when their very office is to decide which shall be believed of two conflicting statements, how can it be a matter of surprise that one juryman should accept one version, and another the opposite. The law, instead of recognising this, and putting jurymen on the same footing as Judges in an Appeal Court when unanimity cannot be obtained, endeavors to force a verdict by imprisoning them. A case in point recently occurred here. The jury being unable to agree, were subjected to what in effect was a short imprisonment with hard labor, and it was only through the urgent remonstrance of counsel that they were not deprived of food as well as liberty. Whether the law is supposed to be framed on the opinion time spare diet and restricted exercise are conducive to clearness and activity of the intellectual faculties, does not appear ; but supposing it to have been based upon such an idea, and assuming it to ho correct, why not cany them out to their logical consequences? If after two hours fruitless delibeiation (lie proper course be to prohibit the jury fresh air and exercise, the next stop should be to deny them food. After another couple of hours passed without a verdict being returned, an embargo might be placed upon their tobacco ox cigars. Should these means fail, it might be advisable to prevent the jurors refreshing themselves with sleep ) and if that proved insufficient, wc might fall back iq)On a graduated scale of torture, commencing with exhausting work on a treadmill, followed by periodical whippings, and culminating with the thumbscrews or the rack, if personal discomfort really conduces to unclouded action of the mind, it should follow that the greater the discomfort the greater the probability of obtaining trustworthy decisions; and when a case of vital importance required adjudication, it might be worth considering whether it was not advisable to make the jurors specially miserable for the purpose of insuring an unquestionable verdict. But joking apart, wc really think the time lias arrived when subjecting juries to coercive restraint, and the wanton havock which is made with their time, should cease. Waste of time at any rate could be prevented at the most trivial cost, and no good reason can be given why the present system, should not be altered.