White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1911-05-14
JURY REFORM.

AHhOh6 thC oa661o1Co 4 AAo u
the jury system the most CONSPICUOUS
are: A proposal to greatly reduce
the number of cases triable by jury;
a manner of choosing jurymen that
would result in the selection of bet
ter material; the abolition of the
unanimity rule in civil cases The first
has been accomplished in England
by providing a summary process for
the disposition of civil actions with
a right of new trial, either before a
Judge sitting alone or with a jury
a right which is invoked in less than
three case out of ten. The English
method has the additional merit of
clearing away legal techniealities,
preventing surprises and leaving
nothing but a clearly defined issue
of fact or of law to present to the
court in such cases as the master,
who conducts the preliminary and
summary investigation, recommends
for a judicial or jury trial. The
parties may elect to try the case be-
fore a judge sitting alone. or before
a jury; and the large majority elect
the former method.
The simplicity and expenditious-
ness of this reform practice enables
England to get along with n high
court of judieature. The rule that a
verdict must be rendered by a unan-
imous jury however. still prevails
in that country, as 1t does in this,
although English judges avail them
selves more freely han their Am
eriean brethren do of their power to
direct verdicts.
With regard to the unanimity rule
the opinion among American as well
as English judges is pronounced
that 1t should be abolished, at least
in civil actions. The most important
questions of law are decided in APP
pellate courts by a majority vote; the
gravest ad~judications on constitu-
tional laws have been made by the
court of abe United States
by a five to four vote. In equity
suits the appellate court decide ques-
lions of fact as we'll of law; and a
majority prevails. Why not let jury
verdicts be governed by the same
principle? Hallam, the historian,
called the unanimity rule a 'prepos-
ferrous relic of barbarism; Lord
Campbell, chief justice of England,
regarded it as "a logical deformity
and gross obstruction to the due ad-
ministration of JUSTICE" Judge Cool
ey declared it TO be 'repugnant to
all human conduct, passions and
understanding" Justice Miller, of
the United States supreme court,
comedies in the main with these op-
inions, but thinks that a bare ma
jority would not command such uni
versal confidence as should be a pre-
requisite in any system of jurispru-
dence.
The prevailing idea among law re-
formers is that a three-fourths vote
should be required. They think that
there is no more infallibilty in the
uUdlllLlli9 VI lNtlNC mCh lhuh III Aht
unanimity of nine. and that a ver-
dict rendered by three-fourths of a
jury would give as near an approach
to perfect justice as is possible for
imperfect human nature. An Incl
dental advantage of the change as
pointed out by a writer In Case and
Comment, would be the impractical
bility of the jury-fixer getting in his
work, since he would have to buy at
least four votes to hang the jury"
One suborned juror o is enough.
To insure due elaboration, however,
1t is suggested that the t~hree-fourths
rule should apply only after the jury
had hapn nuf a eaGonabla lanQth of