Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1874-05-01
Trial by Jury.

The Burlington Free Press has been maxi
ing some figures in reference to the case Of
Hall v. Town, recently tried in the Chit
tenden County Court, as illustrating the
question of whether the fury system of the
State Is desirable or not. This suit was an
action OF assumpsit, wherein the plaintiff
sought to recover the sum of twenty-five
dollars for personal labor performed by
him, for the defendant. The defendant re.
fused TO pay and claimed that the law did
not require him to make payment on the
ground of some dereliction of the p.antff.
The trial lasted two days, and the jury
rendered a verdict for the plaintiff TO re.
cover one cent damages. There were in
attendance upon the court, says the Free
Press:
Twcnty-siI Jurors, at 90 pr day
-Four sherins at 50 per dsy-two days. i6 90
Three judges 2s 90
County Clerk 400
s152 90
The pAintin paid to the State . jury fee Of 800
Leaving the State to pay the sum of s1ie 90
To this must be added the sum of twenty
dollars for the salary of the court reporter
during that time, making the cost Of this
little twenty-five dollar contest TO the State,
s166. In addition to this the parties en-
ployed two lawyers on a side, whose fees,
in the aggregate, by the minimum rule Of
charges, would amount to Sl2s more, maxi
ing the total expense of this petty litigation
in this single case, two hundred and nine
ty-four dollars, independent of witness
fees, which must have been a considerable
sum for two days contest.
There were certainly several ways Of ad-
justing these difficulties between Mr.. Hall
and Mr.. TowD, that would have been pref
erable TO this long and expensive jury trial.
Mr.. Town would have saved considerable
money by paying the demand upon him.
Mr.. Hall would have been much richer by
giving his claim to his opponent, and the
State would have made Sl45 by paying the
debt 1t may be policy for the State to al
low every citizen to carry these little dis
putes before the County Courts and try
them by jury; but the Taxpayers ought 10
investigate the m after far enough to under
stand just how much they must pay for the
opportunity of seeing two citizens exhibit
their spunk and the meanness of their
uiSPOSl'lOu UtlOIo puUllc auuleDce,
who assemble 10 witness the show, with
as much interest as the barbarous rab-
BILE of Spanish town take in the his
toric bull fight. In governments where
the people are the rulers the jury trial is a
safeguard 10 the citizen, but we question
the propriety and the necessity OF the cost
ly machinery OF common law jury to set
tie every little quarrel, about a few
dollars, that may arise in every neighbor-
hood. We insist that the public interests
require considerable revolution in the or
ganization and practice OF courts Of justice.
Judges and jurors are but men, and good,
honest men in every community can be
found TO settle all difficulties about proper
ty in every neighborhood, as they arise,
without any of the vexations and expen-
ses of q jury trial in the County Court.
The interests of litigants require a reform,
and above that, the interests of the public
demand it, and VIC commend to our read
ers thorough consideration of this sub
ject, with view of correcting the abuses
they now suffer in this branch Of the public
service.-Rutldnd Herald.