The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5662, 23 May 1879, Page 4

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1879.

SojiE'montha back an article appeared in onr columns advocating further reform of the jury system in force in New Zealand. So unsatisfactorily has that system been found to work in many instances, and so heavily does it occasionally bear on individual members of the community, that wo venture again to allude to the subject, in the hope that during the next session of Parliament some much needed alterations in the present law may be effected. Englishmen have, as a rule, a deeprooted respect for trial by jury, both in civil and criminal cases, but though they would be very unwilling to do away with the time-honored institution, they strongly object co its becoming a more harassing service than need be. In some districts complaints on this score have of late years been frequent. The Press has repeatedly called attention to them ; they have been made to the Judges in open Court times without number ; and in all probability have been brought directly under the notice of the Government. There are at least two alterations which could be easily affected, and would make jury service very considerably lighter than it is at present. The time of service might be reduced from one week to three days, and the duty of summoning all juries for the Supreme and District Courts might be imposed on the Sheriffs. With regard to the first proposal it may be objected that in practice it would be found that a juryman would have to serve an equal number of days in the year though his attendance at any one sitting of the Court was limited to half the time which the law now provides. This is obviously true, for if the time of service were to be shortened the lists from which the jurymen are drawn would be more rapidly exhausted, and the same names bftener called. But there are, we believe, few men who would not wish that their enforced absence from business should be divided into two periods of three days each at different times of the year, in preference to one period of six consecutive, days. Many who could make shift to leave their ordinary avocation for three days at a time without incurring any substantial loss, or risk of loss, might have a very different story to tell if their absence were extended to a week. It should also be borne in mind that it is not always the juryman who is alone inconvenienced. In some instances work in which others are engaged is necessarily at a standstill whilst he is away. Finally, if jurymen would be benefited by the change indicated above, it would involve no inconvenience to the general public, or in any way interfere with the course of justice. The time of service under the present law cannot be for more than a week, but in every case ends on Saturday night, except as regards such of the jury panel as may be actually engaged in a trial not concluded a,t the rising of the Court. They, of course, have to attend till they have delivered a verdict, or are discharged on account of not being able to agree. There could be a similar provision if the term of service were to be reduced to three days. With regard to the suggestion that all juries should be summoned by the sheriffs, it is necessary to explain that at present these officers summon all juries required for the trial of cases in the Supreme Court, and those for the trial of criminal cases in the District Court. But the clerk of the District Court summons the juries for the trial of civil cases. We have endeavored in vain to discover the object of this provision, which frequently operates very unfairly against individual jurymen. The method of drawing the juries for the Supreme Court and for the trial of criminal cases in the District Court is very simple, and renders it impossible that a man can be called on to serve a second time until all his brother j urymen have had their turn. The more business there is the oftener he will be required to put in an appearance, but he may rest satisfied that he is doing no more than his fair share of the work,. Not so with regard to the civil cases in the District Court. For them the clerk has a separate list, every name on which is also to bo found in the one kept by the sheriff. The clerk draws these civil case jurymen for the District Court without any reference to the sheriff, and it may, and frequently does, happen that a juryman who has just completed a term of service in the Supreme Court is again summoned to do duty in the District Court. This is obviously a substantial grievance, but, as we have pointed out, it is one which could be easily remedied by making it the duty of the sheriff to summon all juries both for the Supreme and District Courts. There is, in fact, nothing to be said in favor of the present practice, and instructions would probably be issued to alter it at once if it was not unfortunately embodied in a statute. Nothing can therefore bo done in the matter without the intervention of the Legislature 5 but a Bill to effect the two changes which wo have shown to be desirable would not tax either the time or the talents of the Government draughtsman very heavily, and there would be no difficulty in securing its passage through the Assembly. The Judges of the Supreme and District Courts have it often in their power to lighten jury service by releasing for a few hours such of the panel as are not actually engaged in trying a case, or by discharging them altogether when the last case on the list has been commenced. The J udges in the Supreme Court almost invariably consider, the convenience of jurymen when it is possible to do so without interfering with public business, but instances could bo adduced in which District Court Judges appear to have been influenced by a very different feeling ; and unfortunate jurymen, who might have been attending to their private business, have been detained quite needlessly for hours, forming

part of an idle crowd, and thinking very hard things of the majesty of the law as represented by the occupant of the Bench. We may state that our remarks on this point are not intended to apply to the Judge of the District Court in Wellington.