The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 29, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1389, 29 July 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 29, 1878.

There is ono point in connection with the question of law reform which requires consideration. Wo refer to the necessity of amending our present jury system. Both as regards criminal and civil cases, it needs considerable alteration. Though open to many amendments, the system as it works with regard to juries on criminal cases does not press so hardly on the jurors as in civil actions. In the criminal cases the evidence is the basis upon which the jury have to found their verdict, and their duty is plain and intelligible. But in civil cases it is different. The jury have submitted to them a series of issues within the four corners of which they have to confine their verdict, and the bearing of the evidence upon which they have to determine. In some cases the issues submitted are both lengthy and intricate, requiring nearly as much time and study to arrive at a proper comprehension of their meaning as tho trial of the entire case. It will thus bo at once seen how highly impropablo it is under such circumstances that twelve gentlemen are likely to come to the same conclusion on tho question. This is still further complicated when tho amount of damages or money payable as between tho parties has to bo assessed. This being so, how is it for ono moment to be contemplated that twelve gentlemen are to arrive at a perfectly unanimous verdict upon a state of things which will present a different appearance to tho minds of all of them ? Why should unanimity bo insisted upon until a space of three hours has been passed in consultation ? Wo allow far greater and more important issues to bo decided by tho voice of tho majority. Our laws which affect the personal liberty of each ono of us are the result, not of unanimity on tho part of legislators, but tho voice of tho majority. Wc are quite unable to see why it is necessary, therefore, that in deciding whether A owes B £SOO or £260, that tho twelve gentlemen to whom tho solution of this question has been referred should bo unanimous in their decision. What possible harm can bo done by tho taking of the verdict of a majority wo are unable to see. On tho other hand, there are many advantages accruing. It would then bo impossible for two or throe jurymen to “ stick out,” and perhaps influence a verdict, against the majority, to escape the enforced seclusion of throe hours. Again, if the verdict of tho majority wore made acceptable, tho verdicts, particularly in cases whore money issues are concerned, would bo far more- likely to bo based upon a right conclusion as to tho equity or otherwise of tho claim than at present. Now, it has been said, in order to arrive at unanimity, it is a very common practice on trials involving money issues for each of tho persons to put down the sum ho thinks should bo given. Tho whole twelve sums are added and divided by twelve, which is given in as the verdict. Now there is nothing of unanimity about this; such a course of arriving at a decision, as to the rights of two litigant parties, is scarcely likely to prove satisfactory to either. With a majority verdict this would bo entirely avoided. A sum could bo put in tho form of a resolution, and, receiving the support of the majority, would form the verdict. It seems to us that, both as regards tho litigants and the jurymen, the majority verdict would bo by far tho fairest and most effective. It must not, however, be overlooked that the extension of tho majority system to criminal cases would in many respects bo of great service. It would prevent any miscarriage of justice which might occur owing to tho necessity under the present system of unanimity. The rights of tho accused on the one hand, and that of public justice on the other, would just be as jealously guarded and conserved as at present, whilst wo are of opinion that great benefit to the public would accrue. There is also another point in connection with civil cases in which it seems to us an amendment in the law is necessary. That is regarding the number of jurymen. No matter whether the case bo unimportant or otherwise, twelve gentlemen are detained from their business it may bo three or four days to try the questions submitted to them. Wo are quite unable to see any virtue in tho number twelve. Six gentlemen would bo able to decide the questions as well as twelve. Therefore it seems worth consideration whether the number of jurymen in civil cases should not bo reduced. In Australia tho juries in some instances consist of four. By adopting this system wo should reduce the hardship now inflicted on business men of having to lose perhaps three or four days at a most critical part of the year to decide a simple case of disputed accounts, which two accountants could settle in a very short time quite as satisfactorily. As we have pointed out, a jury of four could deal with the questions submitted quite as well as one of twelve; and perhaps better. Wo trust, therefore, that tho Government during tho session will see their way clear to making some such reforms in our jury system, as wo have pointed out. Should they do so, tho public as a whole will be considerable gainers.