The Penn's Grove record., 1923-11-02

man.
The above article which was publish
ed this week is certainly evident of a
shortcoming on the part of the writer
to know much about business and less
so to recognize it. 1t is certainly
known that court sessions have the
least business-like transactions of our
government. Yet, there can be money
of the taxpayers wasted by failure to
apply the figuring of business costs
In holding the trials. To prevent
this requires an adept business, ap-
pllcatlon to court procedures, such
as were very marked in the session
of Court just closed.
In his speech regarding Mr.. Borton
as a Freeholder, Prosecutor Beckley
knew where of he spoke. This can
not be denied. But to accuse the
Prosecutor of extra expenses to the
county by having the jurors report for
cases over a period of four weeks, by
saying it could have been finished in
half the time," requires more than
such an empty statement.
This term of Court heard nineteen
law suits and forty-four criminal cas-
es, all for trial by jury. After the
second week most persons were say
ing the sessions would hold until De-
cember to finish the list.
Both Judge Mecum and Prosecutor
Beckley cooperated to have the jurors
report at such times that the costs to
the county would be minimum. Each
of the forty-eight jurors was paid for
each day he reported. Had they all
been required to be present every da'
the trials could have been rush
thru in a shorter time but the tC
expense would have been very m
more. AS it was all reported, say
Monday. Judge Mecum had the II
teen jurors drawn for the first case
be tried and also those for the secol
case. The twenty two others wer,
then dismissed to report with all the
Jurors on Wednesday, sometimes on
Thursday, depending upon the time
thought to be required to try the first
two cases. The jurors for the second
case were to report the next day,
Tuesday, the first case was finished.
1t sometimes finished Monday even
ing so that only thirteen jurors report
ed the next day. If the first case held
over till Tuesday and the second be-
gan that day and ended Wednesday
with all jurors reporting Thursday, as
they sometimes did the cost to the
county was for forty-eight jurors on
Monday, twenty-six on Tuesday, and
thirteen on Wednesday. When each
of the first two cases required but
day each, the cost was for 48 on
Monday, thirteen on Tuesday, none or
Wednesday and all forty-eight on
Thursday while was always neces-
sary.
The fine business management for
the saving of costs is certainly
evident. That there were many days
with no court in session is known and
the costs were nothing but they
facilitated the disposal of cases with
minimum number of jurors report
ing on the basis of the court being in
session four weeks.
So it can not be said that Prosecut-
or Beckley stretched the time few
days at cost to the county for the
service of jurors. He is to be credit
ed for good business Management for
saving hundreds of dollars by having
jurors picked the day before so only
thirteen reported for the next case
instead of forty-eight.
Another aspect of the Prosecutors
"absent business" may be attained by
the way he wasted the time of the
business men and farmers when they
sat for hearings as the Grand Jurors
The Prosecutor had seventy-two cases
to be indicted or cleared of charges.
He had the twenty-five jurors sitting
from nine till six o'clock. How many
days would it take? He had them
finish in two. A moment could not
have been wasted Could this be said
to be slow and expensive work? Did
this waste the time of the twenty-five
Jurors? It did just about as much as
it did with the petit jurors by having
thirteen jurors in the court room
while the other thirty-five were free
to return to their business and farms
and not to report for two days, some