The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-11-03
supreme Court. Oct. IL. 1859.
JURORS FEES AND COSTS.

Hartwell j:
The statute provides, that one dollar fol
each days attendance and fifty cents for each
verdict, shall be the jurors fees, payable as
part of the costs. Counsel argued that tax.
ing the fees Of the entire panel is inequitable,
virtually closing the doors of justice TO a
large class of meritorious plaintiffs or de-
PENDANTS; that the statute only intended that
fifty cents for verdict should be taxed upon
htigants, or at the most, the per diem fees OF
the twelve men who tried the case, and not
of the entire panel.
II was argued that the right of trial by jury
is abridged by requiring parties seeking JUS
tice to pay all the expenses Of the jury, as
much so, as if they were held to pay the sal
aries of judges or marshal, or the expense
of Court-Houses; that the statute requires a
panel of twenty-four native and twenty -four
foreign jurors TO be summoned, and gives
suitors right to have jury drawn from
the whole foreign or native panel; that
it is great hardship in protracted trial
by mixed jury, for instance, to pay the
entire costs of both juries, for the number
OF days they are engaged, while it is in
equitable 10 divide the costs of the pan
els evenly among the causes tried. without
regard to the length of each trial and final
ly, that a rule which makes costs dependent
upon the number OF litigants, or upon the
discretion of the Court TO remit them, is too
uncertain and fuctuating to answer the
purposes of justice.
These views have been carefully consider
ed, for the question involved is important.
To give all persons an opportunity for jury
trial, at a reasonable expense, and at the
same time, not TO open the doors to frivo-
lous litigation, is the object sought The
costs of our Courts are not SO heavy as
to prevent considerable maintenance of
suits, or taking up cases on speculation. To
remit, altogether, the per diem fees of jurors,
would result, probably, in filling our dock
cts with petty cases, requiring heavier ap-
propriations by the legislature, and heavy
calls upon the time of jurors
jury trial is guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton; SO is the appointment of judges and
officers of Court, with fixed salaries, payable,
withthe expense of maintaining court-houses,
and prosecuting offenders, from the pub
lie treasury by regular appropriations The
taxable statute costs in criminal cases, if
the prisoner has no property on which exc
cutions can be levied, are by law payable out
OF the treasury of the Kingdom. The appro-
priation for the Courts is not intended to
cover costs for the payment of which spec
ial provision is otherwise made. All the
requisites for the administration of Justice
are provided at the public expense The
panels are drawn and summoned, and are in
readiness for suitors who desire their causes
to be tried. The expense of retaining juries
to try causes is by statute taxable to the liti-
gants, and properly so. The fifty cents al
lowed each juror for verdict and the per
diem fees Iaid to him while trying a cause,
are clearly to be taxed to the causes tried.
The expenses OF the panel not engaged in
trials, are borne by the Government, but
parties must pay the fees of their own juries
Formerly the costs of the entire panels were
borne by sutors, but the more equitable rule
above declared, has of late years been held,
and there appear to be no grounds for
setting it aside
Parties may avoid jury expense by submit
ting an agreed statement, or in many cases,
by filing and calling up at the opening of
the term, all preliminary and dilatory mo-
tions, the decision upon which may obviate
jury trial. A rule of Court will De made
that all such motions, except for cause sub
sequently arising, be filed on the first day of
term, it being understood that the jury will
not be summoned until the second or third
day of term, as the presiding judge may
direct.
The case of Morris, VS.. Morris was assign
ed for a separate day, and the jury were sum
moned to try the eause at the plaintiffs in
stance. To the extent of twelve dollars, the
fees of that jury are to be borne by the plain
tiff, whose case was continued for amend
ment of the complaint.
In Brewer, vs. Chase, the item of five dol |
lars for hearing of motion is to be stricken
out, but the same charge is due for hearing
in Chambers, upon allowing Bill of excep-
tions.
Argued by ]. Montgomery, R. H. Stanley,
and W. c. Jones, in the first case, and s. H. |
Phillips in the second case.