The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

prepared to allow that; Common Law non« jary cases should always bas tried by an Equity jadge. e went on to criticisa the details of the Bill, strongly disapproving of its terdency to lessen the number of jury cases, He tho:fht that the jndies had in the past misased the powor they held of de-- cldmupon certain cases without a jury, es-- peclally in ozses when railway, insurance peohfiy in osses when railway, insurance ard banking companics were fsrfisl to auits, Many of the judges had formerly been ccunrel for such corporations, and ho thought their declsilons were far more likely to be blaszed than those of jarles. 1t was well krown to everyCommon Law prastitionsr that it was almost imporsible to defert such cor-- porations on Issues of faot--a state of things which jaries pald mors attention to than a judge. _ He setrongly deprecated the ton-- deroy of the Bill in the directlon of allowing cazes which now came before jarlss to go be-- fore the jadges, 'Mr. MOWAT saild the Bill had cvidentiy been drawn with a great deal of care, aad ho wes very glad that his hon. friead had called atiention to the various psints to which it related, His bon. friend who spoke lsst bad evidently no faith in Chancery lawyors. Hs said he did not find Common Law lawyors bringlog in Bills ot law raform, It that were so, is showad that Ohancary law. yers were driven to bring them in, and thus Chancery lawyers had to touch the sacred thing with their ascursel hands, (Lavughter.) Thoy had not shown any jea: lousy of Common Law lawyers or any desire to Increaso the amount of Chancery businsss in previous leglalation, which bad resulted in a rensible diminution in the business of the Cout of Cmoo:{, which, however, had been made up by the growlnfg confidance in that court and the growth of the oonntr{. '"'he hon. gentleman had bsea unreasonably hard on Common Law:judges, who had not, he was sure, misused the powers glven them by thke Act, On the contrary, he had found the course taken by them had mat with general approbation. At the same time he was not disposed to lugg«!'th.t_ln'ger pow-- ers whould be glven to them in respect to the withdrawal of cases from juries, It they were to confine the Bill to matters . about which there was a general agreement the greater part would be struck out, Some of the provisions were similar to those in the Bill he had introduced to give effect to the suggestions of the Commisaloners, _ 'The hon. E::tlomn suggested with rogard to short: d reporting a means bx-whlch the noces: rary funds might be raise Hoe was afrald the honr.memm over--estimated the value of sho ';eporbt:n'gl.lm Thi° &o{:srnmeut pn;pondtom e a beginning in respsct, and to ask the House for a voto, not such g:ob.bly as would enable all the Courts to accompanied by shorthand writers, but enough to try the u&dmont sufficlently to show whether thay should go further or not. It would be a considerable addition to the expenditure, but it had been tried elsowhere, and the Government were willing that the experiment should be hlrl{ mado. If, in view of the objsotions which had been madse mfl to as probably VEWWw VC P C CCC OC Olevee en c to varioulerm of the Bill, the hon. gentle: man desired to have it considered by a Salect Committee, he would have no objection to its belng read the second time,but ho thought the adoptien of a good part of it would have to be postponed. Mr. HODGINS sald the membsr for South Brant had already assonted to the Bill which gave power to Common Law Judfii'!'nh try equitable issues, but he was unwllling to assont to the judges in Equlity having power to t'r'y Common Law irsues, Seeing that in roference to the question of shorthand roporting it was tha intenticn of the Government to take it up, it might be to the interest of all par-- tles that the Bill should drop. He thousht the di:cussion would have a good re-- |nlt,°bat moved now that the order be diz. chargced. The order was then dissharged ani the Pilt wlihirawu. VERDICIS OF JURORS, Mr. BETHUNE, in moving the socond reading of the Bill mifiactlng the verdicts of jarors in civil causcs the Suporior Courts and Connt{ncourh. explained that this House could not Interfere with crlmiual cases, and that as in Diviston Courts the number of jurors was only five, ha did not propose to interfere with them, The Bill pro:lil'od that x' Tw _i _ % 28 "As xmss satele SE ECE Ees C NH o % 0 E when a jury bad retired and had bsen out one hour eleven might return a verdict, attor two kours ten, and after three hours nine. 'There could be no doubt that, tho\&.h gener-- ally the jury 'mtem had been satislactory, there were eviis complainsd of in connectlion with it, He thought the evil was that a partissn on one side or the other was detor-- mined to hold out, Bssides that, it was al-- most impcossible to get ::iy. tw:lve mon to agree exactly on any particular quastion, On the Bench a majority was all that was re-- quired, while in a jury nunlmit¥m re-- quired. _ The system was a relic of barbar-- ism, Ho gave the history of trial by jury, ind went on to say that the reason for unaun-- Imity had entirely passod away, In Sco}-- land they bad fifteen jurors, and a majority was sufficlent to find a verdict, In 1832 a Bi)l similar in principle, though not in detail, to this was reccmmended by the Common Law Commirsioners. Generally the msajority ruled, and he could not see why thres--fourths of a jury should not be able to find a verdict, He believed there would not bs zo much objection to the jary system if it were confoimned to the tglrit of the age. Ho was strongly in favour of its continuaucs,and hoped the matter would be discussed fres from any partiality as betweea Chaacary and Common Law lawyers, The Bill was then read the secoad tims. On the motion for reforence to Com:-- mittee, Mr, MACDOUGALL (Simsoe) coagrata: lated the hon, gentleman on the universal as-- sent which his Bill bad recoived. He had observed the difficultics wh'ch arose from pigheadedness on the part of one or tio jurors, Ho thought the hon. gentleman had done wisely in limiting the raform as he had dore, 'The measure would have theo effect of {;ivlng time to the jury to consider the bear-- ng cf the evidence. He would be vary soory to see thero casss left in the Lands of tho judge without ths azsiitance of the p:ogle collected in the jury bex. The Bili met his entira approbation, axd would terd to ralse the character of juries and to meet the growing objection to tke system, Mr, HARDY said he should have desired that the recond reading shoulid have been postponcd until members had had an oppor: tunity of corsidering the Bill, If the Bill had bcen confined to such cases a&as libsl there might be a pood deal to be said for iIt. A stubborn man could prevent & verdisct baing Fiven at all, but he was not awars of a case n which he had brought the other elsven jurors to agree with him. I% would have becn destrable to bhave a retarn showlug ia how many cazes there had baen a disagreo: mont of the jury, Hse believed those casos were very fow, He was of opizion thatin many cases whore a 2ury falled to agres it was bost for all puities, He contended that the moral woight of a vordict by a majority world cot bo so great as a unsnimous ver-- dict, and the result would bs constsnt ap: plications for new trials, Where now thers weas one mis--trial there would ba twolive cascs ol mew tria's under this Bill, The hon. gentleman bhad the fHoor, when, , It being six o'clock, the Spamker la!} the Ccu&ar, After recoess, Mr., HARDY rosumed the dshate, com-- plainipg that the mover of the Bill had uot io Ths wirking at the preaght aysiem botice F na seekirg to change it H{ls ho'l{ friend had complained that twelve jurors often gave unjuast desislons, but he (Mr. Hardy) was of opinion that the chances of unjass verdists being rendered would be vory much in:-- creased by altering the law as he propased It was a very unfrequent cccurrence for a juy to disagreo becauss one or two stub-- bora men helid out againss the opinion of the others, and disagreoment far oftiner arose from the stubbornsss-- if such it could be called--of a larger proportion of the jury, His hon,. friend had presented no petitions in favour of the pro-- posed changs; neither lawyers nor jadges, he b:lieved, desired such & revolution in our jury system. The leading membors of the Bar of tha Province he (Mr. Hardy) knew were op%oml to such changes. There was a feeling abrosd among the profession through-- out the country that every changs made in the law by Toromto fawyers was calculated to bring grist to the Toronto mill, The ef-- for it would lead to continual applisations for new trilals, which meant a large increase in the income of Toronto lawyers. It would have the more -- serlous consequence of lersening the contidense we now kad in our jury system by introda-- cirg the suspiclon that soctarlanism would even find a place in the jury box. Mr. FRASER said ho was not in favour of the principle of the Bill, orindeed of any change in the present jary system,. 'Thooreti-- cally apeaking, is would perhaps be a difficult matter for any member of the House to say why the unaaimsus opinions of eleven, or ten, or nine, or a leas number of mon should