New Zealand Colonist. FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1843.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 70, 31 March 1843, Page 2

New Zealand Colonist. FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1843.

Tiie recent speculations on the subject of the Jury Law, exhibit as notable an instance of that species of sport, which is more emphatically than courteously termed, finding a mare’s nest, than any which we have known for some time. The astonishment and dismay of the finders; the grave surprise of those to whom the portentous secret was first disclosed ; the sagacious projects set on foot, and the lengthened discussions on facts which were either nonexistent or inapplicable; surpass almost every thing we have previously witnessed. For ourselves there is, however, one consolation. All our articles on the matter will answer the purpose next year, if by that time no Registrar is appointed.

It is a fact, and we announce it for the benefit of all our readers, and of tlie universal Settlement, that we have still the benefit of the trial by Jury. Jurymen who were straining themselves to the precise pitch of indignant patriotism that might enable them to protest against the flagrant violation of their, liberties in contemplation, under which they were summoned from their business, and might possibly have been kept from their, dinner, must gradually "relax the tension, and fall into their ordinary condition. Debtors, to whom it might be inconvenient to pay their debts, (if there are such in Wellington), and who might anticipate a six months’ relaxation, since there would be no Jury to try the cause, must forego that delightful, but delusive prospect, and address themselves to the task of gathering money for the purpose of paying it. And many who are confined in prison, awaiting their trial for crimes to which the law attaches its heaviest punishments, to whom the supposed doubt added an additional uncertainty to those under which they were previously laboring, will have at least the .relief of knowing that within a given period their fate will be decided.

The mistake appears to have arisen from the circumstance of the various enquirers confining their attention to the new law, to the exclusion of the old. The old law was repealed, and nothing seemed more natural than to throw it out of consideration. But it appears, that though the Ordinance of 1841 is defunct, its consequences survive ; and the old Jury List, framed under its authority in January in this year which is declared to be valid till the making out of the new Jury Lists, subsists in full vigor. Every one whose name is upon that Jury List, consequently, is liable t« be summoned and to serve upon Juries. If we had not long since been proved by our contemporary to have no knowledge of law, either with regard to duratioq or quality, we should have been ashamed of not having discovered what was to be the duration of the old Jury List. As it is, we wrap ourselves up in our ignorance, and are contented. But that , our learned and legal contemporary should have been mistaken upon such a point, does overwhelm us with surprise. Such, alas ! is the wetness of human nature, that he wha can write most learnedly upon a subject, may still,be .liable, to. fall' into erf or.’ n

But seriously—we do think that this , furnishes an illustration of the ..inexpedience of that system of framing ordipances ■?. adopted by: our Colonial Legislature.; > It is; no doubt,! advantageous to get rid of verbosity and' redun-i dancy, and as Falstaff says, to V.^n?ita,te: the| honorable Roman in brevity.”. But -precision! and clearness are the most important of "all' qualifications in a legal style : and we think that

the ordinances of the Legislative Council are frequently deficient in both qf these. The language is often too colloquial-, for the one, and too brief for the other; and we will venture to say that few laws require more the aid of a legal education in order to understand . them. In the particular instance, the - continuing validity of the Jury list depends upon a principle of law, well settled no doubt—that the repeal of any act does not destroy the efficacy of whatever has been rightfully done under its authority. But this is an inference to be drawn from a careful collation of two acts, instead of being, as we submit it should have been, explicitly stated in the new law. Such, at least, is the opinion of some legal friends we have consulted on the subject, and we confess, that so far as we understand the matter, we quite agree in opinion with them.

We copy the following melancholy intelligence from the Auckland Chronicle of the Ist of February, 1843. The gentleman to whom it relates came to Port Nicholson in the Mandarin, in December, 1841. Mr. William Cooke went to Auckland in the New York Packet, in April, 1842, and after he had erected a house on some land which he purchased, his brother James, who remained at Wellington in consequence of bad health, followed him in the Spring, and shortly afterwards died, his brother William surviving him but a short time : “ Died, on the morning of Saturday last, (Jan. at his residence, Epsom, in the 26th year of his age’ Mr. William Cooke, third son of the late Nathanie Cooke, of Cookmount, County Monaghan,. Ireland, Esq“[lt may he remembered that in the first number of our Journal we announced the demise of a brother of the deceased, aged 24 years, in Auckland, on November sth,' 1842 ; both gentlemen came to this colony in the Mandarin, and were highly' connected. Should this sorrowful announcement reach their friends through our columns,ut will be some consolation to know-that both received every attention, both religious, medical, and careful nursing. Since the death of his brother, James, the more immediate subject of the present notice, had the grave handsomely and substantially enclosed, apparently little expecting so early a doom to himself.]”