The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1881.

Kumara Times, Issue 1523, 15 August 1881, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1881.

As there has been a very large amount of excitement and consequently discussion concerning certain peculiarities iu the procedure in the District Court

a few days since, and as the legality of some of the proceedings has been questioned, it may not be amiss to consider a few of the features of the statutes which apply to District Courts, and to juries. It is necessary in. the first place, to state that the Act under which District Courts are constituted, and the " Juries Act, 18S0," are in conflict to this extent.: tlut the two Acts confer precisely similar powers upon totally different individuals. Thus, for instance, in the District Courts Act it is compulsory for the Judge of such Court to issue to the bailiff the precept to summon jurors, while on the other hand, the Juries Act provides that the Sheriff shall be commanded by the Registrar to undertake and carry out the same task. In the case to which we more particularly refer, the Sheriff summoned the jury. However, the real question to be considered is this : Was the farce of allowing jurors to decide a case which they had heard but a few hours previously, and in which each had arrived at a fixed opinion, strictly legal, and merely one of the many absurdities to be met with in our Law Courts, and which appear to be affectionately cherished on account of their excessive stupidity ? or, was the course adopted sufficient in itself to make the whole of the proceedings in the second day's trial ultra vires *? We must first consider the question of challenges. The Juries Act says that in the trial of all criminal cases, there shall be no challenge on behalf of the Queen, except for cause certain, and that the truth of such challenge shall be inquired into according to the custom of the Court. It would be interesting to know the reasons given in connection with the challenges of the Crown, especially as the fact of four of the jurors on the last trial having made up their minds as to the guilt or innocence of the accused was not considered sufficient cause for them to be challenged. Thirty-six jurymen were in attendance, and, each side exercising the full privilege of challenging, there were still twelve left. Of these, four were the rneu before referred to, and how they allowed themselves to be placed in such a false position as they afterwards occupied, it is hard to imagine. It has been an invariable rule in the higher courts that when a juror declares to the Bench that his mind is already made up with regard to the case about to be tried, he is excused from serving; but it is customary that when such a plea is made, to put the juror on his oath as to his reasons. In the instance specially under consideration there was no occasion for the four or any of them to be tested by such an ordeal. Supposing that they were ignorant of j the usages of courts, it was the obvious i duty of the Bench to point out the position in which they stood, and at once relieve them from attendance. Had such a coarse been pursued, it necessarily follows that a full jury would not be present ; but that would have put no difficulties in the way, as the Juries Act makes very clear provisions as to what shall be done when such an emergency arises. The 119th clause is as follows :—" Where, either before or after challenges, a full jury shall not appear before any Court, such Court upon request made for the Queen by any one thereto authoiised, or assigned by the Court, or on request made by either party or his solicitor in any action or suit, shall command the Sheriff to name and appoint, as often as need shall require, so many of such other able men of the jury district as shall make up a full jury." The Act then goes on to provide that the Sheriff, on receiving such command, shall return snch men duly qualified to serve on such jury, and .-hall add and annex their mimes to the taid panel. Under these circumstances challenging proceeds as before. The 122nd clause goes on to say :—" The Court shall proceed with those jurors who were before empanelled, together with the men so newly added, as if all the said jurors had been returned upon the original jury precept," The foregoing are the true facts of the case, and we

leave our readers to form their own conclusions upon them.