The Westport Times. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1872

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1017, 29 October 1872, Page 2

The Westport Times. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1872

Trial by jury is, through, time honored custom and precedent, regarded as one of the bulwarks of the British Constitution, a safeguard against infringementof the liberty of the subject, a protection for the oppressed, a guarantee that justice shall not be defeated in the punishment of transgressors ; but, like all other good and noble institutions, it is liable to abuse and is at times permitted to degenerate into a mere mockery, mischievous alike id its moral effect, and degrading the majesty of the law. An instance of this has just occurred, which as faithful journalists wo dare not refrain from noticing. Two individuals were placed upon trial at tho "West-port District Court, accused and convicted upon tho clearest possiblo evidence of having used, under slightly varying circumstances, deadly weapons, either for defence or aggression. In the one case, Regina v. Williams, it may be assumed that tho jury taking into account the peculiar relations existing between tho parties implicated, and the surrounding circumstances, unanimously agreed that the plea of justification set up was valid, and a sufficient grouud for the prisoners acquittal. In the second case, Regina v. M'Shane, they cannot hold themselves thus excused, unless their own words after decision was given, utterly belie their eecret judgment. With a plain state-

meut of facts before them, corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of each successive witness, the jury retired, could not agree, were rc-oalled ) permitted to state the point at issue—it was one as to rightful ownership of laud — they were told to dismiss it from their minds, as not affecting the indictment, and to consider the charge of assault upon its own merits, they again retired, were locked up for another interval, by no means grievously tiresome, and then returned into Court, declaring a verdict of Not Guilty. Doin-* so, according to their after admission, not from honest unbiassed judgment, but because the majority in favor of conviction gave way to the minority favoring acquittal, simply to save themselves from being locked up all night. Thus sacrificing their consciences to their convenience, and degrading trial by jury to a contemptible sham. As Britous, as men of intelligence, as respecters of the sacred office entrusted to their keeping, it was their bounden duty to have braved any and every inconvenience, and failing unanimity, patiently await the hour of relief wherein their responsibility would have been transferred to another jury of their countrymen. Upon the question of provocation as between the parties, or the actual harrr.lessness of the assault, there was no need of argument. There seems little doubt that disputes as to rights of property engendered unneighbourly feeling, culminating in bitter animosity, and that the complainant was in many respects more culpable than the accused, but such a plea will not con. done the offence of unlawfully using firearms, or extenuate the ill-advised .decision of the jury, howsof>v»i» it might have influenced the Court in passing a lenient sentence. It can hardly be that a single individual on the jury would attempt to assert that society has become so demoralised on the goldfields, and public peace and decorum so subverted, as to render it necessary for individuals located in remote places to maintain their rights and liberties, or settle their personal disputes, by the use of lethal weapons ; and yet in point of fact the question between the jury and the public narrows down 'to this issue—Either a verdict has been given which does not record the honest opinions of the jury, or a state of social affairs has been disclosed showing a contompt for, or mistrust, in police and judicial protection heretofore unseen and unsuspected. From any point of view the moral effect of the verdict recorded will be powerful for evil. The public may expect to hear of more and frequent assaults with firearms when the news spreads among contentious brawlers and disturbers of the public peace, that, so long as the names of a few kindred spirits are permitted to remain on the jury list, such outrages may be indulged in with almost certain chance of escape from legal punishment.