Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, JUNE 91, 1998.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1319, 21 June 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, JUNE 91, 1998.

“ I sctpose " said Sir James Prendergast in his address to the Grand Jury yesterday “ I must congratulate you upon having for the first time, a sitting of the Supreme Court in this district " —and His Honor then proceeded to furnish reasons why sittings of the Supreme Court should not be held in Gisborne. The opinions of the Chief Justice upon whatever subject they are given, emanating from so learned an authority, always receive that deference they no fully merit; and the Colony may well feel proud that the highest office of the State is reposed in such worthy hands. That Sib James Prendebgast and his brother Judges feel that they should jealously guard against innovations that might in any way tend to sully the administ ration of J ustice, it is, from the high and responsible position they occupy, but natural to expect. The misgivings in the minds of their honors as to having regular sittings of the Supreme Court at Gisborne, are such as could with equal force be applicable to many other districts in New Zealand. Sib James Prendergast, and his colleagues think, rightly or wrongly, that in such a community as we possess—a district sparsely populated, where everybody knows everybody’s business, that, it would be hard to find juries who could consciously or unconsciously, approach their duties in the unbaraesed manner desired. As ancient as is the institution of trial by jury, it is not even new in the Nineteenth century, perfect. Propogated in a semi-barbarous age, it has with different modifications come to us, and as invaluable as it is as an institution, it is becoming an increasingly difficult task to adapt it to the requirements of the high scale of civilization into which the world is rapidly drifting. While human nature retains so much of its ancient attributes, it is as hopeless to expect immaculate juries, as it is to discover the philosopher’s stone. If their honors, the Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, take any of the large towns of tlia Colony, and we doubt not, but they can call to mind many, many, instances, where juries,—highly respectable aggregations of individuals—have given verdicts, which, it would be hard to believe, were not brought about by circumstances of which there was no indications given during the trial. This only points to the conclusion that the jury

I system is not perfect, and for ourselves I we entertain grave doubts if it even will be. Bo long, therefore, as the people of Poverty Bay are no better or worse than their fellow colonists in other parts of New Zealand it would be a slur and a reproach to the inhabitants, if they are deprived of periodical sittings of the Court. While a possibility exists of verdicts tinged with partiality being given upon Poverty Bay cases by jurors in Napier or elsewhere, the privilege of sittings of the Supreme Court here may, just as well be allowed. “Juries"says Hallam, “ are, of course, liable to error; and when they err their blunders are made in public, and draw at least a full share of notice; but, on the other hand, we should remember the invariable honesty, and the almost invariable patience, with which juries address themselves to their duty. No spectacle is more markworthy than that which our common law' courts offer, of the unflagging attention and resolute determination to act fairly and do their best, which is shewn by jurors, though wearied by the length of trials, which are frequently rendered more and more wearisome by needless cross examination and unduly prolix oratory.” Those remarks applied to England may, with added force, be applied to f*ew Zealand and the Australian Colonies generally. Apparently the sole objection to holding regular sittings of the court here is that the population not being large, persons with a personal knowledge of the parties coming before the court might be called upon to decide cases. They might, therefore, disagree as to their verdict, and thereby entail the loss of time and trouble necessary in having a new trial ; or through partiality, give a verdict contrary to justice. That such a condition of things might arise is assumed, but the risk is proportionately no greater than is incurred in the hearing of cases in Napier, Wellington, Auckland, or other large towns. The question is, would not the advantages to the public and to the country generally, by holding sittings of the court here, far outweigh any supposed evils that might in consequence crop up. If special cases arose where party feeling ran high, such cases could be readily heard elsewhere. What the Government should bear in mind is the isolated position of the district Cutoff, almost, from all traffic and communication with the outer world, except by sea, a great hardship is inflicted upon suitors, if upon every occasion of having to transact business with the Supreme Court, they are to prepare for a sea voyage, ana at the least a two or three weeks' absence. The costs thus incurred under various heads, work a terrible injustice, and to persons of limited means, the Supreme Court of the colony is practically closed. The general progress of the district is relarded, land title disputes are undetermined, so long as the district is deprived of the necessary means of having its matters in litigation locally disposed of. Many considerations should weigh with the Government in continuing the periodical sittings of the Supreme Court now commenced. The advantage to the public arising therefrom should not be cast to the winds on sentimental grounds, the existence of which have not yet been proved. Nor indeed when the matter comes to be closely analysed is it at all probable that any real abuse of the jury system will be likely to occur in Gisborne so long as such able judges as Sir James Pbeniji-boast and his learned colleagues adorn the bench. In criminal cases the plain facts generally stand out sufficiently prominent to render the task of the jury comparatively easy, and it is not in such cases Poverty Bay jurors will be suspected of having feelings of partiality. In civil cases, according to M. »e Tocqueville, the most profound political writer of the age, in his De la Democratic en Amerique, the jurors look to the Judge with confidence, “ and listen to him with respect, for in this instance their intelligence is completely under the control of his learning. It is the judge who sums up the various arguments with which the memory has been wearied out, and who guides them through the devious course of the proceedings. He points their attention to the exact question of fact, what they are called upon to solve, and he puts the answer to the questions of law into their mouths. His influence upon their verdict is almost unlimited.” The question of verdicts, therefore; does net appear to rest altogether with the jury, as the judges have important functions to perforin. We hope that any prejudice in Sir James Pbendeboast's mind with reference to the sittings of the court here, will before his return to the Empire City be dissipated ; and that the Government itself will perceive the wisdom on economical, as well as other grounds, of allowing the half-yearly sitting of the Court now inaugurated to be continued.