Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1321, 26 June 1883, Page 2

We have little doubt but what the opinion of Chief Justice, Sir James Prendergast, has undergone a considerable change since the commencement of the Supreme Court sitting, with respect to the chief objection he then urged against the holding of the same in Gisborne. The grave doubts expressed by His Honor as to the feasibility "of obtaining efficient and unprejudiced juries to try the several cases, were shared by a number of the most educated and thoughtful men of the district. These doubts must, ere this, have been entirely dispelled, for it cannot be denied that the several findings which have been arrived at by the juries here have been in strict accordance with both law and justice. It is true that counsel in several instances —and notably in one case on Satur-day-availed themselves of the power the law gives them, and peremptorily challenged a number of jurers. The law empowers prisoners, upon indictment or appeal, to challenge thirty-five jurors, and we have seen this number exhausted on several occasions in some of the largest towns and centres of Europe. Trial by jury, we are informed by Lambard, was first introduced into England during the Saxon Heptarchy, and jurors were made responsible for their verdicts with their whole estates Though it is generally accepted that trial by jury was instituted by Alfred about the year BS6, yet there is good evidence of their existence long before his time. * In a case tried at Hawarden, nearly a hundred years before the reign of Alfred, we have u list of the twelve jurors, which amply confirms this fact. Magna Charts, describes the institution as “the great bulwark of the people’s liberty.” Statute 28, Edward 111., 1353, provides that any foreigner may elect to be tried by a jury composed of half his own countrymen. Prior to the year 927» plain I tiffs and defendants were to provide refreshments for juries, but it being found that this delayer! the giving of verdicts to an indefinite extent, a law was passed, denying sustenance to juries after hearing evidence until after a verdict. A judge may, at his pleasure, confine a jury without meat, drink, or fire (candle excepted), for an indefinite term, providing they do not come to an unanimous decision. Jurors who make any provision in the shape of food against such a result are, upon conviction, heavily fined. In Scotland the law receives the verdict of the majority of the jurors, but in France, since 1831, a majority of two-thirds are re-

quired. Phillips, writing in 1791, tells us of a jury ft t Sudbury, which, being unable to agree, had suffered durance for some considerabla time, and at lust, pressed by hunger, forcibly broke out and returned to their own homes. We think it must be conceded by all that no further arguments whatever can, for the future, be urged against periodical sittings of the Supreme Court in Gisborne, save and except that it may interfere with certain arrangements altogether outside of us, and beyond our control.