The Daily News MONDAY, OCTOBER 7. OLD CUSTOMS DIE HARD.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 7 October 1907, Page 2

The Daily News MONDAY, OCTOBER 7. OLD CUSTOMS DIE HARD.

O'd customs die hard. Especially is this the. case when taerc is involved any matter that relates to ihc liberty of the subject. The jury system is a notable case ia point. When and to whoju its inception was due is not traceable. Like Topsy, it seems to have no birth—'it just g;o\y;J." The only clue to its origin js found in eeruun primitive customs of the Northern European races in the dim ages of the past, and from tune to li.ne developments took place in dilferent countries down to our own time. ihe British system apparently" took shape in the AngloSaxon period wiieu a person accused of crime was entitled to summon twelve of his neighbors, called compurgators, who swore to his iniio.mico. Alter the Norman Conquest the custom was vigorously developed, until it arrived at its present form. Tne .system has at least the impress of hoary antiquity, and the eustouiaiy veuer.it.on of things ancient teien ii luoa.dy) inherent to tne ion.servj.tivu iiiinos ul tne average Britisher is of itselt a, lormidaUc barrier to reform, and it requires no little pluck to venture on s.ich a task. Nevertheless wheu an old fruit tree has taken to develop leaves instead of fruit the pruning knite has to be applied oit-tinics with severity. Our present system comprises tv.o juries in criminal c.ises—the grand jury and the petty (or petit) jury. In civil cases there are also two —a. common and a special. By virtue of these several juries, it must be admitted that the lives, libaty and pr.peiry of Briti-h subjects should be jealously and potently guarded. Even death itself (when of a sudden or violent nature) brings into force a coroner's jury. So that whether alive or dead the sacred person and property of even the meanest citizen of the Empire has the b.nelit of the services of his neighbors to see that justice is done. There are many good points in this elaborate system, but time and experience hive brought to light not a few delects that cull for amendment.

'Hie recent sensation at Hie sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth consequent on the Gland Jury' throwing out, or, teehnic.illy speaking, ignoring Jib :iill of indictment against certain persons charged with an unlawful assembly at Opnnake, has caused widespread comment throughout the Dominion. It is not necessary to further dwell either on the comments evoked or the main iacts involved. We all know the majority of the members of the jury decided th.it there was no sutlicieut foundation for the accusation, and their reasons for so doing should j:o accepted in all good faith. They knew the facts on which their verdict was based, while those who have published severe strictures on the jury had nothing more than the judges charge and the mere verdict on which to base their h'.sty and umliserved censure. The incident has caused attention to be drawn to the question of whether the i Grand Jury serves any re.ij purpose of utility or not. On the score of expense there is nothing to be s.iid, as the jurors are not paid for their services, whatever they are worth. Whether the end attained justiiies the means employed in ai.otacr matter. It is only necessary to follow the ordinary course of events in a criminal prosecution to arrive at a logical conclusion as to what course appeals best suited to attain the ends of justice. In the Court of iii st instance, known as the Lower Court, a person accused of a .serious offence under the crimiu.il code is arraigned before the Magi-trate, who, alter hearing all the evidence, either discharges the accused, or commits him for trial. Most people would consider that when a person is thus committed for trial he should be July tried. The Magistrate having decided that there 'is

a prima, lueio ease against the accused, what possible excuse call there be for the case to be submitted to a store or more men, each of whom may possess good business qualifications, but not one oi them having the training necessary for the weigliing of evidence or the elucidation of mutter material to the ease?

Thus it happens that ill: decision pi the expert Magistrate becomes theoretically subservient to the opinions oi ,0 set of laymen whose chief object is to get through their irksome task as quickly as possible. Unit the original proceedings should take place before a Magistrate is absolutely necessary where possible, but we venture to assert that when once a person lias been committed for trial he should be tried. It by mt . aus ioiloW!j th . a a couvioUou will ensue, but unless the Magistrate is incompetent or impartial aim remedy for which is obvious) his decision should need no revision at the hands of imquahhed men. The deduction to be diawn liom this contention is that the services ol grand juries can verv well be dispensed with. Should the .Supreme Court judge consider there is no case lo go be ore the jury, lie can, after cuing the evidence, direct the petty J n to brmg in a verdict of not guilt/. 1 n.uy be argued that even the ,C;V r ol \°" L ' sidu or tne °thcr, lut ha docs not ailect the question ■•=> the dual verdict will still remain with the jury. There j s v ,. t ~„" " important point to be considered, namcy, the testing of the evidence given baton, the Magistrate. At present when a Grand Jury throws out a bill it is an indication that the accusation has m* » basis oi truth. Js-ow, the Ma-is-u ate on the evidence before him, has decided in an exactly opposite direction. Ihe only conclusion to be drawn is that he winesses when examined by the Grand Jury have "gone back" on their evidence. Such a state of affairs 'ii'nn? °'t "T ll,in ? vor y mu< * "kin to, it not actually, perjury. Now had the accused (been tned and the witnesses loiind unreliable or untruthful, they would have run the risk of suffering for their shortcomings. Under the 2 s - vs , tei " , tllcy csc:i p u h 0& 1(^I Pi'n.'lty and and social contumely. I n the interests of justice (his result can ..V - a l'l lli "" i0( l- Meanwhile the i ™!f T cns " d ! )<!rs "" ,u,fl ,lot •■«.■"' in,- ■ ol s, ' cm S tu< ' 'l'sromii une hi njs accusers.

tern i" 'i!.;!,'!""'.'"' ,°", r I ' rcso " t i'"'y V<summoned for l!„. ,',,,..,,,, „ ,:,- ', ~.'" 11,,. ,~, puipo-u n| due 1,!,,,,, gi-cadr nI.MM-dily t, ~,,, , ■ '''' "'»"' the eourtliouse to th, mn > ;, '"■'l"r t» view (he bode. V'lr,t o,r I Nhle end is served by tlio process! Pro. glibly none of (he jury can rcco^nis,.

I the deceased, or, if they did. it would J not mi tier, as evidence'of identification (except in the oases „f the "unknown") has to be given by relatives or ac'luaiutances of the debased. Neither lean they therein- satisfy themselves as to the cause of death. ' Medical testi- [ ninny is invariably secured by the police, and it is mostly on this, coupled with attend :iit circumstances, thai the coroner relie=. The jury take 'directions for their verdict from the coroner, and, In fact, they might just as well be lmlf-a-dozen dummies for all the good j add ,i rider lo their verdict, and thus i -inne point connected with the safe- i 1 guarding of human life, but the coro- «

ner could, with perhaps added force, i-ii]isei|uent on the oilicial position lie holds, press home on those concerned •ny recommendations that may lie deemed lit. In recognising the present anomaly with regard I o coroners' juries, the first step has hcen taken towards re-building the fabric and easting out useless material, l'robably the process will take time. As we have already said, "old customs die hird." When the time arrives for the demise of the venerable ,but uselesi Grand Jury there should be more joy than sorrow. It will be like brushing away a very ancient cobweb that served only to obseenrv the light. The nm \ 0 f tj„. age ; s light—as much light as we can get. Light is the enemy of darkness.