STOUT IS BITTER.

NZ Truth, Issue 75, 24 November 1906, Page 4

STOUT IS BITTER.

The fact that the Government did iiot succeed, during the past session, m amending the Jury Act so as to provide for majority verdicts jn oriminal cases, has not commended itself to Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout. Indeed, there are a lot of things that do not commend themselves to the Chief Justice, and the pet aversion of Hisonah appears to be a jury, which, notwithstanding the broadest of hints thrown out from the Bench, particularly where convictions seem desirable, returns a verdict not at all incompatible with the evidence and certainly not justifying the injudicious anathemas hurled at the jury from the Bench. With' all due respect to the highest servant of the colony, Sir Robeirt Stout, Chief Justice, is a jury brow-beater of the worst possible' type ; and if he does not desist from this undignified practise then Parliament must be invoked to rap his Judicial nibs over the knuckles. Jurymen 'are representative citizens and if they are not protected by a Judge, who is ,tq afford protection other than Parliament ? The humblest individual m the land The humblest, individual m the land has to take tlie law as he finds it. In that respect the Chief Justice is no different to /the coal-heaver. He (the Chief- Justice) no doubt has strong convictions on many matters, and no disrespect is intended when it is suggested that had not Digger Dick Seddon on a memorable occasion shown his vigor and pluck and left "Bob" Stout m the lurch, the same "Bob" Stout might have been New Zealand's First Minister, and we should therefore have had many useful ■legislative enactments on our Statute Book, including a Jury Act Amending Bill, which provides for the sacrifice of a man's liberty, or possi.oly his life, by a majority verdict. Having, no doubt, had his wounded feelings solaced by the Chief Justiceship, one would have thought that politics, which proved so unprofitable, would be the last thing thought of now by Hisonah: Evidently they aire not, m so far as the present Government failed, as it practically promised, to place on the Statute Book of the colony, an Jury Act providing for majority verdicts m criminal cases, a system which seems to have endeared itself to Sii Robert's "kindly" heart. Last Monday, a foreman of a jury made an unfortunate slip. Prior to retiring to consider a verdict, the foreman, who apparently is not steeped too deep m the political mire, wanted to know U it was nossible to return a majority vcirdict. This rrav? the Chief Justice the opportunity he wanted. He could not, he said m so many words, understand why Parliament had not passed the Bill last session. Then followed some reflections on the British nation not falling into line with other nations that convicted criminals on the largest number of votes. Mr Wilford, M.H.Pv.," who happened to be defendin; counsel m the case, heard all that

was said, and, speaking for Parliament presumably, said that they had taken good care of it, by which he inferred no doubt that he and others of his mind had settled the hash of such a monstrous measure as the Jury Act Amending Bill. Now it seems that the Government scented danger with this bill and wisely refrained from pushing it too far. The. best way out of the difficulty was to drop it quietly. This the Government did. So therefore Sir Robert Stout will have to content himself with unanimous verdicts from juries, for some time to come at any rate. In "takinE good care" that this pernicious Amending Act did not become Law Mr Wilford and those of his way of thinking on the subject have rendered the country a service, and it is to be honed that the "taking care" policy will be pursued. What is wanted is an Amending Jury Act providing for the protection of juries from being browbeaten by the Bench. .