The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-01-05

confer similar jurisdiction Upon the Cham
cory Court OF the city Of Richmond,
I'm relatfonfo fduciaries.
To amend section 5 of an act entitled .san
act to amend the 1st, I'd, 4th. 9th, and TIN
sections Of chapter 1872 Of Code'of 1860, re-
lattng to fduciaries; and making other pro-
visions for the same"
To;amend section %, chapter 17e, Code
Of 1880, as to compelling attendance OF VII
nesses. r-'~-@
To amend and resnact sections 2, 8, and
4, of chapter 200 of Code Of 1860, as here
tofore amended, as to suspension OF e&ecu-
ton of judgment and-wrIt OF error In cflnii'
nal cases.
Joint resolution to suspend certain pro-
visions of sections 81 and 49 OF an act 10
establish and maintain a uniform system Oh
public free schools.
THE JURY LAW.
House bill to amend the Code as to Jur1es
generally was taken up on its second read
ing.
MIR. THOMAS proposed to amend the 6lll
nv giving the power Of making up the isl
Of Qualified jurors to board consisting OF
the county Judge, Commonwealth's attor-
nov. and clerk instead of to the judge alone.
This was the provision OF the Senate Dill,
and he thought it an excellent one. Inc
county Judge already had great powers, and
he thought it inadvisable to extend them
in this direction.
Mr.. SoUTHALL, of Albemarle, opposed the
amendment.
MIR. KELLY favored the amendment. lie
agreed with Mr.. THOMAS that the county
| Judge was already clothed with too mucn
power, and this new power If vested IN any
one man might be welded to the injury Of
popular rights. .aos
Mir. McCAULL thought the county judges
had already too much work, as well as TOO
mich mower. They are now everywhere
complaining that they have too httIe pay
for what they do. He urged, also, that the
| clerk and Commemorative attorney-ana
esneciolJy the clerk-from their wide ac-
oIiaintance with the people, were much
better qualified than the judge to make OUT
list of jurors. TN -
MIR. PopHAM argued that the bill, as IL
stood, virtually abolished trial by jury
The amendment OF MI. THOMAS was
agreed to. -, ,;u ,,,os
| On motion of Mr.. THURMAN. the Oil was
further amended, so that the Uentre fdclds
issued by Judges of county or corporation
courts should require % jurors to be sum-
moncd, or more if such judge so designate.
| Mr.. Woop moved to strike out the Sec
tion which provides that "in any case, eX-
| cept a case of felony, unless one OF the par
| ties demand that the case be tired oV jury,
the whole matter of law and OF TACT snail De
determined and judgment gwen by the
| court. and bv consent of parties the jury
NAV consist of SEVEN" He urged that this
was blow at the jury system, which should
| be resisted.
sir. CRENsHAw favored the amcndment.
| MIR. THOMAS thought the bill, as reported,
instead of abridgine, enlarged the rights OF
the accused, He should be allowed the
power of dispensing with jury II ne does
not care TO pay the costs, and IS Wllllhg "
| trust his case entirely with the court.
Mr.. PopHAM hoped the house Woulu uo'
he misled by the Sophlstry OF the gentle-
man from Henry (Mr. THoHAs). This Sec
tion diu really make trial by the Judge the
rule. and trial by jury the exception. Ii
the parties did not expressly demand
irrv. the nudge would hear and determine
the cause, and this demand might be con-
str11ed rs an expression Of doubt as to the
ability or Integrity of the judge. ..-
MIR. HESsLEY thought the proposed pro.
vision would place the legal profession OF
the country in most unenYiable position.
He agreed with Mr.. WooD also that 1t
made radical change in our law, winch
should be carefully considered before being
adopted. 1t is q confession that the jury
system in Virginia is a failure.
Mr.. GUY opposed the motion to strike
out. As to the objection that it was placing
attorneys IN a disagreeable position, he said
that while lawyer might hesitate to say
before jury that he preferred jury should
be dispensed with, he would not hesitate to
ask the court for jury: The judge un-
derstands what passes in the mind OF coun-
sci, and knows that no reflection is intend
ed. He denied that there was here any
infringement upon the rights of parties to
a suit, but rather an enlargement OF those
rights. 1t was only proposed to do away
desired result.
On motion Of Mr.. WooDsoN, the House
adjourned.