The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JULY 8.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 177, 8 July 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, JULY 8.

The remarks which fell from Mr. Justice Richmond at the opening of the Wellington Supreme Court Criminal Sessions on Saturday last have a direct bearing upon the important question of trial by juriy— a subject which has of late years, attracted much attention and upon which there is much diversity

of opinion. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury,said there "wasurgent need of reform in the jury law. and the right of a prisoner to challenge twelve was, in his opinion, excessive, and was continually abused in such a manner as to result in selecting as unintelligent a jury as possible. This did not refer to the Wellington district alone, but to every district in which he had sat, and this abuse frequently led to the failure of justice. It seemed to him that the benefit to be obtained by amalgamating grand and common juries had been frustrated by the excessive right of challenge.” He also complained that “ the large number of grand jurymen summoned pressed very hard on the citizens, and he hoped that some steps would be taken with respect to a reform.” We are not at all surprised to hear these words fall .from his Honor seeing that the Bench as a body has of late years shown every desire not alone 10 curtail the privileges of trial by jury—which Magna Charta justly insists on as the " great bulwark of the people’s liberty,”—but also to entirely abolish the whole system; and as a first step to this end great exertions have frequently been made to reduce the number of jurors. The right to challenge, of which Mr. Justice Richmond complains, is of very ancient origin, and almost coeval with the institution of which it still forms a fundamental and most important feature. As far back as 1353, by a statute of Edward HI., in common law, a prisoner, upon indictment or appeal, was allowed to challenge peremptorily thirty-five, or any number under three juries; and although modern jurisprudence has led to the reduction of the thirty-five to one-third its original number, yet any further attempt in this direction must be viewed with the greatest anxiety. The argument that the right of challenge is capable of being, and is frequently abused, is of no weight, as we have yet to learn that any law was ever yet framed of which the like could not be said. In the majority of instances prisoners seldom or ever avail themselves of the privilege, and it is the exception far more than the rule to see the right exercised in criminal cases. No doubt the strongest argument which can be urged against it, and which doubtless lies at the root of the complaint, is that it frequently has the effect of retarding business, and rendering the revolution of the ponderous wheel of justice somewhat slower and more tedious than it would otherwise be were the right of challenge abolished. Judges are but men after all, and as such must be excused for endeavoring to render their irksome labors as light as possible; but there is a far more grave and serious side to this important question, and every effort should be made to restrain the strong tendency which is being shown on the part of many dispensers of the law to sweep away those wise safeguards which our forefathers found so necessary for the due protection of “ the liberty of the subject ” and the welfare of the people, and the necessity for which has not waned with the lapse of years. With respect to the last complaint as to the necessity for summoning large numbers of Grand Jurors “ pressing very hard on citizens,” we should have thought that Wellington at least could offer such an extensive field for selection as to render it a matter of rare occurrence for a man to be summoned on a Grand Jury very frequently. Undoubtedly there is a great dislike on the part of most people to serve on a jury, but at the same time there is no room for sympathy as he is only carrying out a duty which devolves upon him as a member of the community to which he belongs, and which is incidental to the due administration of just laws, and the existence of the glorious constitution under which we have the happiness to live in safety and freedom.

After his enforced short period of active usefulness Mr. Locke has returned amongst us, and the electors will be again called upon to endorse at the polling booth their former decision. The promptitude with which Mr. Locke set about utilising his short stay at Wellington, and the amount of service which he rendered the district in the short time allotted him proves both the fitness of our choice, and the earnestness of his intention to do all he possibly can for his constituency. The first result of his efforts was to obtain a sitting of the Resident Magistrates Court at Ormond, which will undoubtedly prove a great boon to litigants resident in the surrounding neighborhood of that thriving place ; a polling place at Patutahi ; and next the important concession whereby the Motu Block is to be thoroughly examined with a view to the speedy settlement of the same. The latter matter is of great importance to the district, and should its settlement eventuate, must assist materially in adding to the importance and progress of the district. His act with respect to the obtaining of /’too for the widow of the late Mr. H. A. Downes shows that private claims as well as public ones will meet with every attention at his hands. If we. remember rightly, one of the strongest arguments which his opponents urged against Mr. Locke’s return was that, on account of his entire ignorance of all parliamentary form and procedure, he could not possibly prove of any practical use to the district for some time to come, and that the whole of the first sessions at which he sat must, consequently, be wasted and lost. Whether there was any groundsfor making such an assertion is best shown by the result of the /«?<> days sittings which Mr. Locke had the honor of attending. His first act in voting against the payment of the honorarium proved the consistency and soundness of his principles, and his resolve to donate to the public use the whole of the amount thus forced upon him by his liberal opponents is an example well worthy the notice of those who “ only voted for the full sum for the sake of poor members,” but who appear to have shown far more anxiety on their own behalf, and eagerly clutched the “unearned increment." Both friends and foes alike confess that he has done well, and we have no doubt but that the ensuing poll day will show that the public are not unmindful of those qualities which go to make up an honest and sterling member of Parliament without any “ axe to grind ’’ outside the good of the district in particular and that of the colony in general.

I We can only hope that for the sake of the country the new Parliament will contain men like Mr. Locke and very few like his opponents.