JURY TRIALS.
Mr. Adam's bill [H. R. 74] to amend Section 409 of the civil procedure act, approved April 7, 1881, [provides for the trial of all civil causes involving issues of fact by Jury, unless the parties waive their rights] being read the third time-
Mr. FRAZER stated that the proposition of this bill is to go back to the Jury system again, and he hoped the bill would not pass the House.
Mr. SHIVELY desired that the bill would not pass the House. It requires all causes to be tried by Jury. He considered many cases too intricate in their nature for a Jury to hear and render an intelligent decision. Their decision is simply guess work.
Mr. SMITH'S observation had been that Jurors were not allowed to note down evidence while in the Jury box. This is a privilege that the Judge can take ad vantage of and thereby reader a better decision than if placed under the same restrictions. On issues of fact, especially those involving intricate inquiries as to accounts, could not well be tried by a Jury, for the Juryman could not carry in his mind a long array of figures, being debarred from taking any notes to assist his memory. He thought this bill simply placed twelve men in a trammeled position. He was not in favor of the passage of the bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, thought the bill was of in the interest of economy. It would require at least one-third more time for the trial of cause in the Circuit Court of this State. In the interest of economy this bill should not pass.
Mr. HEFFREN: When the bill was first Introduced was opposed to it, but after hearing the discussion in the House, and after close inspection of the bill, he favored its passage. He could not comprehend why Juries should not try questions of fact. In answer to the argument that injury sometimes results from trial by Jury, he said that in his long experience at the bar, he found that the benefit resulting from Jury trials very much overbalanced the injury. It is not supposed that every man who sits upon a Jury has a classical education. But he had always I found that the men who come from their farms to sit in the Jury box have as much good common sense as persons who are educated in Colleges.
Mr. MOODY thought that in a great many cases the Jury could not arrive at the facts near enough to render a decision that would not immediately be set aside by the courts. He favored leaving the law as it now is.
Mr. GORDON made an ineffectual motion to lay the bill on the table until a full House.
Mr. WILSON, of Marion, said that while he had confidence in the good sense of Juries, he was nevertheless satisfied that under the limitations imposed upon Juries they could not try certain chancery cases. He then spoke of the expense and delay growing out of the trial of such cases by Juries, of the appeals to higher Courts and reversals and consequent delay. He called attention to the practice in other States in the Union as in harmony with the existing statute, that the federal Courts, and the Courts of the Nations most celebrated for their jurisprudence, recognized the wisdom of trying such cases by the Court. Nonresident creditors will avoid the State Courts if this law is repealed and seek relief in the Federal Courts wherever such Courts have jurisdiction. The inconvenience of this is well known to defendants at a distance from Courts. Bear in mind too that judgments in the Federal Courts are liens on lands of the defendants throughout the District, and the consequent inconvenience. It is the opinion of the most eminent jurists that the Judge only should try a certain class of chancery cases. This is approved and attested by the experience of civilized Spates.
Mr. GORDON, when the question was up before, favored the bill, but since that time he had made some little inquiry, and was informed that there probably had been more appeals occasioned by this section than any other section of the Civil Code. He undertook to say that after a Judge had given instructions to the Jury that the Jury is just as apt to come to a correct decision as the Court itself. He was of the opinion that the bill should pass.
Mr. ADAMS stated the objections to this bill simmer down to about one proposition-that of trials of cases involving accounts by Jury. He desired to ask if this one single objection alone should overbalance all the argument in favor of trial by Jury. In answer to the argument that a Jury is not competent to try a case involving accounts, he stated that he could take a Jury of Morgan County men, present the case to the Jury, and after the Judge had given his instructions that Jury could render as fair a decision as any Court in the world. Every member of his County bar desired the bill to> page: 188[View Page 188] pass. He wanted some man to tell him why it required more time to try a case before ft Jury than before ft Court. In answer to those gentlemen who claimed such to be the fact. He would say that they must have pettifogging lawyers in their Court. We do not have this class of lawyers down our way. He did not believe that if the bill passed it would make an increase of half a dozen cases in the Federal Courts. Wherever a question of fact is to be considered the nest way in the world to consider that fact is in the hearts of honest Jurors, This bill ought to pass; it is better for the lawyers, it is better for the farmers, and it is better for everybody. There were many real estate and mortgage transactions that ought to be tried by Juries. The bill passed the House by yeas, 52; nays, 22.
