Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-11
4 JUDGE SUGGESTS
THAT ALL JURlES BE ABOLISHED
SAVE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.

| His Idea In Regard to Civil Cases-A
Bench OF Three Judges-Eviis of the
Present system-Expense and Delay OF
Business In the Courts.
"What is necessary for an eticacious re-
form o. the jury systeInH Judge Jameson
was asked
There Is only one way; abolish it alto
gether. 1t IS absolutely useless for anything
but TO increase and multiply the delays and
vexations of litigation. 1t is the most ex-
peasive and cumbersome clog in the already
! cumbersome machinery Of legal jurispru-
| dence. Except in criminal cases it is un-
/ necessary. Ny idea about civil cases IS to
have them tried by a bench Of thres judges.
! The advantage of such an arrangement
! would be an enormous saving OF expense; it
| would expedite the business which the courts
! already have to do, and it would cut down
! the amount of litigation 20 per cent. Why,
/ it is notorious among the judges and men,
! bers OF the bar that half the suits brought in
! this county ought not TO be instituted at ell,
! and that seven out of every ten that are
| brought ought not 20 be defended. II is not
the people who demand jurors for the trial Of
civil cases. It is the lawyers"
why is thatf'
because a jury is more susceptible Of in
fuence than judge Because a lawyer wing
las poor case will calculate on getting a
disagreement II not a verdict and with that
as an argument he can force settlement in
behalf of his client 1t is tho experience OF
every judge that when lawyer has poor
case he viii not try it bafore the court, and
,at han ba hoe >r,I ba f 4 l1o
plaintiff or the defendant is a woman jury
is invariably demanded She calculates on
the exercise Of Establishments which would
be ineficacious with a judge, but profitable
when applied on a susceptible young juror.
A lawyer thinks of a jury that ne can con-
vince at least one man on it and induce him
to come to his way Of thinking, and he has
just twelve chances with jury, where he
would have three with bench arranged &c
cording to my way of thinking
"Another thing about jurors is that nearly
every verdict is gambling verdict. A jury
is more apt to render Judgment on the flip
of a penny than by any consideration of the
merits Of case. have heard jurors say
that they have reached verdict by each
man putting down sum, which is added up
and divided by twelve Why, the whole
thing is a ridiculous farce. The comical side
Of the jury system often impresses ne. Take
a complicated case involving bookkeeping
and involved accounts. It's ramifcatioas are
sufficient to puzzle a judge experienced in
trying such cases. What then can be said Of
jury composed Of day laborers, who know
no more about bookkeeping than ! do Of
steam fitting or ship callling' Or take case
concerning the value or title of real estate,
and there are men on the jury who never
owned land and never knew anybody who
did, and as to the principle of possession,
they don't know the difference between a title
and q horses hoof. presume that nearly
fifty per cent Of the cases appealed are re-
versed because of the error in instructions
to juries. Abolish the jury and you DO away
with that. Then look at the frightful amount
of time consumed in getting jury, not to
mention the expense. First they have to be
summoned. Then they must be called in
case Next they must be examined by the
lawyers one by one. Finally they must con-
slider their verdict venture the assertion
that bench of three judges could try ten
cases while a jury is trying one.
Gas q general thing q jury does not arrive
at its verdict from the evidence. The in
structions are seldom looked at. 1t comes
into court with decision which the judges
know is contrary to the law and the testi-
mony. Then the court must either grant a
new trial, with its attendant delay and ex-
pense, or let it stand because no knows
second trial would be but repetition Of the
first. So that if the time consumed in fool
ing with jury were computed. it would. be
found that seven-tenths of the time requfred
for the trial was taken up by jury delays.
Still another point to be considered is that
with no jurors there would be no cor
ruption, and justice would be surer,
speedier and less costly. Jury service
is a hardship to many men. In trying
common law cases / have nsd to excuse many
mechanics, worhiagmen, small shoPkeepers
and clerks, to whom or their families two
weeks Jury service would Ee almost Tuina-
ton. With juries only in the criminal courts,
q man would have to sit on a jury about
once in a lifetime. In this busy city many
q man has been discharged by his employer
because he had TO perform jury service The
Judges can't stop it. An employer can say
he did not discharge man for that reason,
but for some other. l have looked st this
matter from every standpoint, and l can see
only one way out of it. The abolition of ju-
ries in civil cases would be of vast benefit to
the taxpayirg community and honest liti-
giants, decreasing Matchmaking suits and in
surfing better results. l think there is no
doubt that the litigation could then be dis
posed Of, and disposed of easily, by the
judges we now have on the bench. 1t would
give them = good quota of work for every
day in the year, but il would not be too
much"
THE plan you suggest could not be adopted
without an amendment to the constitution,
could i'll"
II presume not, but there is no obstacle in
the way Of amending the constitution. The
law has made less progress than any other in
stitution. The grand jury system is absurd
in this age The needs which called it into
being now no longer exist. The grand jury
was created to take from the mobiles of Eng
land the prerogative of Indictment ard I'M
prisoument, and for that purpose nothing
better could have been then devised. But TO
say now that secret inqUisitlon which can
snirch mans character irretriavably on ex-
parte charges without giving him chance
to defend is a proposition not IN harmony
with the tendency OF the age. A charge be-
fore q magistrate and & hearing then and
there, with an information by the prosecut |
ing attorney If the bearing warrants It, s
common sense substitute for grand jury"
as there any other way, judge, than the /
abolition Of juries to remedy jury fxlnsF
is there any way 10 prevent murders and /
burglaries' Jury fixing is thing that might /
be decreased TO some extent by stringent 4
punishment But as hanging does not pre-
vent homicides. noriron bars prevent burg /