Question: When did Singapore end trial by jury?
About the article "Singapore", section "Government and politics".

Candidate passages:
 Trial by jury Wikiality  
Civil juries.
Seventh Amendment.
The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
In Joseph Story's 1833 treatise "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", he wrote, "t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty."
Nearly every state constitution contains a similar guarantee.
The 7th Amendment does not create any right to a jury trial; rather, it "preserves" the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law.
In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time.
In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity.
Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not.
The decision in "Rachal v. Hill", indicated that 7th Amendment right to jury trial may severely limit developments in the principles of "res judicata".
Some critics believe that the United States has more trial by jury than is necessary or desirable.
The right to a jury trial is determined based upon the a demand in the complaint brought by a Plaintiff, without regard to the defenses or counterclaims asserted by a defendant.
The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part.
It has been suggested that in complex litigation, the jury's inability to comprehend the issues may cause the 7th Amendment right to conflict with due process rights and authorize the judge to strike the jury.
The right to trial by jury in bankruptcy cases has been described as unclear.
In "Colgrove v. Battin", the Supreme Court held that a civil jury of six members did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in a civil case. 
Her first feature length film was "Rabun" in 2002.
"Mukhsin" won an international children's best feature film award and special mention under the children's jury awards.
Most of her commercials and films have been screened at the Berlin, San Francisco, Singapore international film festivals and the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival (not to be confused with the other Cannes Film Festival).
Her films were featured in a special retrospective at the 19th Tokyo International Film Festival in October 2006.
An April 2007 retrospective of her feature films was sponsored by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Hawaii, and the Honolulu Academy of Arts.
In Singapore, Yasmin is best known for the pro-family commercials she did for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Yasmin was inducted into the Malaysian Advertising Hall of Fame by the Association of Accredited Advertising Agents Malaysia in November 2008.
Yasmin was working on her first feature film to be filmed in Singapore titled, "Go, Thaddeus!"
when she died.
This was to be an inspirational film for the 2010 Youth Olympic Games, based on the book, "Running the full distance: Thaddeus Cheong" by Belinda Wee about Singapore's 17 year old National triathlete who died after completing the 2007 SEA Games time trial. 
Occasionally, the opposite problem occurs and a party refuses to participate in the summary jury trial process.
The response of the courts has varied, depending upon the nature of the case and the reasons for the desire to avoid the summary jury trial process.
On the other hand, courts have also allowed parties to refuse participation in the process when it might jeopardize the parties' normal litigation.
Since the aim of a summary jury trial is to promote settlement negotiations, there would seem to be little point in dragging a party into a situation in which they might withhold their best efforts and thus bias the verdict brought back.
The process of empanelling a "mock jury" has caused some controversy.
In the "Hume" case, the court flatly denied a request by both parties for a summary jury trial on the grounds that it did not have authority to require citizens to serve on a "mock" jury.
Usually, this has not been a problem.
In the eyes of the layperson, the summary jury trial proceeds much like a regular trial.
The jury is selected by "voir dire" without being told that its verdict is non-binding.
The clients must attend from the opening statements through summary presentations of evidence and closing arguments.
After the verdict, the parties begin an examination of the verdict and the reasons why the jurors reached it.
When the parties believe that they understand how their evidence fared in the minds of the jury, they meet and once more attempt to hammer out their differences.
Note that at this stage, the proceeding devolves to a rather traditional negotiation session! 
Based on the testimony of the women who lived in the brothel, the police arrested 19 year old Richard P. Robinson on suspicion of Jewett's murder.
Robinson, a repeat customer of the victim, flatly denied killing her, and did not display much emotion even when confronted with the still warm corpse.
Nevertheless, based on the testimony of various witnesses and the recovery of a cloak that resembled Robinson's, the coroner's jury, hastily assembled on the scene and made up of on-lookers, concluded that Jewett met her end "by blows ... inflicted ... with a hatchett by the hand of Richard P.
Robinson."
This was enough to gain an initial indictment.
On June 2, 1836, Robinson's trial for murder began.
Ex-D.A.
of New York Ogden Hoffman appeared for the defence.
After days of testimony from several witnesses, including Rosina Townsend, the judge gave the jury its instructions.
As most of the evidence against Robinson was circumstantial, the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty in less than a half hour.
However, as most of the witnesses were other prostitutes, the judge ordered his jury to disregard their testimony.