The Southland Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1866.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 210, 31 January 1866, Page 2

The Southland Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1866.

One of the most important articles of the treaty signed after the bloodless victory of Runnyinede, was trial by j ury. In that celebrated document commonly termed the Palladium of our liberties, Magn a Charta, trial by jury is frequently insisted on as the bulwark of our freedom. So high was it esteemed that Sir Mathew Hale speaks of it as " a constitution admirably adopted and framed for the investigation of truth, beyond any other method of trial in the world" and Mr. Justice Blackstone rapturously exclaims, "we cannot but admire how scrupulously delicate, and how impartially just the law of England approves itself, in the constitution and frame of a tribunal thus excellently contrived for the test and investigation of truth ;" and again, "upon these accounts the trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law "— " that it is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals." Since Mr. Justice Blackstoste's time, however, material changes have taken place, and amongst the rest the character and use of juries have altered. They are not now what they used to be ; so much so is this beginning to be felt, that more than one intelligent, experienced, and honest man, has of late years, denounced the system of trial by jury as savoring of barbarism redundant in ignorance, partiality, and incapacity, arguing that the ends of justice would be much more likely to be attained by referring the case to a bench of educated and trained Judges, than to a body of imperfectly educated men, frequently of a low intellectual standard, who cannot be supposed to possess by intuition the faculty of hearing, without being deceived by sophistry and eloquence; of catching and connecting as it flies the broken and disjointed evidence of numerous and contradictory witnesses ; of selecting what is material and rejecting what is irrelevant ; of sifting the wheat from the chaff — the substance from the seeming ; and extracting the kernel of truth from the misshapen husks of errors in which it is enveloped. Nor is it only to incapacity that some of the astonishing verdicts of juries can be attributed. Judge Bbamwill, in speaking of the danger of trusting to the impartiality of a jury, has stated : — " That no usurer re- " sisting a life policy, no great company " resisting a claim for an accident ; no " lawyer or doctor suing for a bill ; no " gentleman contesting the charges of a " tradesman ; no landlord suing for " a forfeiture ; no person who has by " any means rendered himself unpopular " can safely depend on the imparti- " ality of a jury. Nay, even a mer- " chant of London suing a trader of a " country town, is not safe, in a dis- " puted case, with a jury of that town ; " in parts of Wales a Welsh jury can " scarcely be got to do justice to an " Englishman against a Welshman." If such arguments can be used against the time honored ■ custom of trial by jury, and carry conviction with them, in the home country, with how much greater force do they apply to the colonies ? Por some reason or other social morality does not improve by crossing the line. If a juror in England, notwithstanding the onerous and sacred obligations of his oath, allows himself the latitude of indulging in any pet theory or private partiality ; in the colonies it would appear he claims it as a right. The veriest trifles, such as nationality, private friendship, or brotherhood in an order, are sufficient inducements to lead him to forfeit for the time the solemn obligation he has taken upon himself. The fact that, in new countries population is sparse, clanship prevalent, ties of friendship cemented during the passage to the new horne — all have a strong tendency to weaken the impartiality of a trial by jury ; and render an appeal to it far from satisfactory. That the above considerations ought to have no weight in the mind of a juror, to whom is committed the tremendous responsibility of vindicating the majesty of £he law, and engendering a confidence in the purity of its administration, no one will controvert — that the contrary in the case, experience has, un fortunately, too often, proved,

In this unenviable distinction Invercargill Juries can claim a prominent position. Almost every Session held since we have enjoyed a Circuit Court, has been marked by some extraordinary verdict, opposed to common sense, and in direct contradiction to the evidence and summing up of the Judge. "In the verdict delivered at the late Criminal Session, it would appear we have reached the climax of absurdity and' incompetency. In the last case (M'Coios-ell's) in particular, it is difficult to determine upon what principle the Jury returned a verdict of "Not Gruilty." It was, to put it in the mildest terms, a strong case of circumstantial evidence, backed by a partial confession of the prisoner. The hypothesis as to the case of death submitted by the prisoner's counsel, though ingenious was untenable, after the unshaken evidence of Drs. Moncton and Deck. The learned Judge delivered his charge with more than ordinary care and deliberation. He warned the Jury to disabuse their minds of any impression which might have been created by the eloquent pleading of the prisoner's counsel ; pointed out to them that however disagreeable a duty it might be, they were bound to discharge it without scruple, or fear of any personal consequence, from the solemn oath they had taken, and the interests of society entrusted to them. He stated, "that it was beyond doubt the deceased had been feloniously killed, that the evidence and partial confession of the prisoner tended to throw a strong suspicion on him." In deference, to the feelings and prejudices on the subject of capital punishment generally prevalent in the present century, His Honor gave them the option of bringing in a verdict of I manslaughter. We are persuaded that there was not a single person in the Court, when the Jury retired for deliberation, that was not convinced that the point for consideration was confined to that of murder or manslaughter. The verdict of " Not G-uilty " took all by surprise, notwithstanding that Southland Jurors had previously given strong evidence of an erratic turn of mind. This verdict must have been an unexpected relief to criminals who may be awaiting trial by a Southland Jury. We acknowledge that the Jury was composed of men of respectability, and perhaps of more than average intelligence. We do not think that they would have admitted in extenuation such an argument as rumor attributed to a former jury : — " That " the prisoner having been confined for " three month's before trial, the punish- " ment was enough, though it was clear "he had committed the crime." We believe they were too intelligent and too deeply impressed with the serious responsibility entrusted to them; and yet we are convinced that the verdict they gave confirmed an impression which has, not unnaturally, Tjeen gaining ground — that crime can be committed with impunity in this province, — that a criminal can, with safety, entrust his life and liberty to a jury of his fellows. The very respectability of this jury adds weight to the supposition. An authority on the subject writes : — " We are all familiar with the " doctrine being professed by those who " are opposed to capital punishment, and " regard on religious and moral grounds " the perjury of a juror as a lighter " offence than his being instrumental in " depriving a human being of life." This, however, we hold to be monstrous in morals, and pernicious in practice. If the law is bad in any particular, let it be amended ; but to prevent its application by a system the most demoralised and wicked — excused under the plea of doing " rough justice," is disgraceful to any civilized community, and detrimental to the efficiency of those concerned in the administration of justice. Nor does the injury inflicted on the morale of society, by lax and unjust verdicts, stop there ; it rebounds on every grade of the myrmidoms of the law. Once let the impression become fixed that whatever case may be got up ; however clear the evidence for conviction, both time and trouble may be thrown away, by the determination of the jury not to convict, and the greatest of criminals may stalk boldly through the streets, in the confidence that he will be lightly watched and if discovered sure of an acquittal. It is but reasonable to suppose that if " Not Gruilty " becomes the chronic peculiarity of jurymen, it will mar^fche effect and deaden the energies of those whose duty it is to detect crime and bring the criminal to justice.