The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-03-04

OrS IN attendance on the court. HC
said If it were paid only to the
twelve sitting, it would be giving
premium to sit on jury.
Mr.. Farr was opposed to the bill
1t gave few cents a day to the
Jurors. 1t was not right. The jdry
should be paid, and he thought the
territory should require a docket
fee. of say, So, then the territory
would be getting fund by which
Jurors could be paid.
Mr.. Stout said he was in favor of
the money being paid to those who
earn it.
Mr.. Thurman said the litigant
ought not be compelled to pay men
VINO do not work for him. Our laws
unfortunately required the attend
ance OF three or four times the num-
Der of men needed to try case.
He thought it an outrage that a
man, because he is a litigant.
must pay persons who rendered
him no service; it was wrong. To
pay the money only to those who
SAT on a jury would put a premium
on being on case. A poor man
compelled to attend the court would
see that unless he sat on a Jury he
would get nothing, and it would
have a tendency to cause perjury.
Mr.. Jaqups referred to the bill
passed at the last session. The
present bill was referred to the com
mlttee, was immaterially amended.
and it was returned for the House
TO take whatever action it chose. as
the committee could devise no salts
factory measure. The jury fee bill
was one OF the most difficult at
tempted ID be gotten I'D. If the
House knew what kind of a bill it |
wanted, the committee would draft |
it, but otherwise the committee |
wished nothing more to be done |
with it. The House had given de-
clded vote against the territory pay
ing jurors in civil cases, and others
were equally as much opposed to
litigantS paying it.
Mr.. Booth argued in favor Of his
claiming that at the
end of the term all would have been
on Juries about the same length of |
time, and thus all would be bene |
lifted alike if the mo ey was divided
pro rata. 1t made no difference to
the litigant whether his SO was
paid to twelve men or thirty-Six.
Mr.. PenTOse thought the money
should be paid only to those who do
the work. To tax litigantS to the
full amount that would be required
for jury fees would be an injustice
and would prevent the planting of
many suits. He was not pleased
with the bill, but looked at it as
better than nothing.
The amendment of Booth was /
hen voted down.
Mr.. Stout moved to strike out that
portion of the sections which pro-
vide for the collection of the bill of
costs, by rule or execution, upon
The motion Of either party, or of the
district attorney.
The motion to strike cut was lost
Mr.. Preston was opposed to the
bill. 1t was far short of furnishing
4 fair compensation for jurors
whose attendance was required. If
1 man sits on a jury for two days
he would get 4Oc. Those who want
he luxury of a jury should pay for
t,juSt as he would have to pay for a
or man to do any other
abor. The amount here provided
.Or was so slight as TO amount to
title or nothing. He was opposed
20 it.
Mr.. Partridge asked some ques-
ions as to the exact meaning of the
)ill.
Mr.. FAIR was not prepared to
vote for the bill because II did not
cover the ground intended. We
nave law compelling the attendance
If every man summoned, and pun
shing him if he refuses. We should
either provide for their payment,
)r we should repeal the law COM
)elling their attendance. Many of
hem have to come here. the best
way they can, and bring their
blankets and sleep and eat any way
hey can. 1t is an outrage to force
hese poor men. without any means,
10 come here and attend jurors. /
hall be ashamed to meet my con-
if the law is not made
ust. The men who bring suits are
well-to~do; and should |
)e made to pay there for. We are
old that nine out of ten of the civil
ases are for many troubles, and
hose men should pay for a jury
Who wanted it. The claim that the
Of a fee for litigants
would stop the course of justice
vas incorrect; in nearly all cases
he man who wins loses, because
he expenses he incurs are greater
han the amount he wins.
The bill continued to be amended
nd it seemed the more it was
the worse it became mud
led.
Mr.. Preston moved that in place ]
f SO being invested, it be made
hat the litigant should pay the
ocular jury fee.
The amendment received several t
econds, when Mr.. Penrose read
rom the laws of Idaho on the case,
hat the person bringing a suit
hould pay at the impaneling Of the
ury, and before the commencement
f the trial, the per diem of the
jurors called to sit on the case, and
hat the amount shall be advanced