date

29 April 1808 §.14. I. Reasons
29 April 1808

§.14.

I. Reasons for the Work

§.14. Jury Trial improvable

3. But if the truth may be spoken, and if facts be regarded rather than the colour put upon them, excepting where damages are given the adjustment of the quantum of the damages, it is but seldom that in causes of a civil nature the mind of the Jury is the real source of the verdict entered under their name. Among the points settled in their presence, and to appearance under their authority, many, and those of essential importance, are not in fact submitted to their cognizance. Here follow a few Examples:

1. In regard to evidence tendered, whether it shall or shall not be admitted.

2. The evidence being received whether it shall be deemed sufficient to support the Plaintiff's demand.

3. The evidence received, and being in the judgment of the Judge not sufficient to support the Plaintiff's demand, whether the Plaintiff shall have a verdict against him, or only suffer a nonsuit i.e. in the latter case have a right in the first instance, and without asking leave[?] of the Court (viz. the Court from whence the cause was sent to the Jury), to bring the cause to trial anew.

4. Unless in case of a degree of determination on the part of the Jury, such as in any other case than that of personal interest, ardent partiality, or strong prejudice is never probable and scarce ever realized, the Judge finds it in his power to take the substance of the question out of the hands of the Jury by making the verdict special, or stating some question of law. +

5. When, as is most commonly the case, the plaintiff's declaration contains divers Counts, (i.e. the instrument of demand contains a demand the same in effect, but shaped in divers ways, the question on which Count or Counts the verdict shall be taken is a question settled in some way or other among the lawyers, not being in fact submitted to the decision of the Jury: a practice in one sense not without reason: since worded as these Counts are, replete with falshood, patent or latent, it would be in vain for the best informed of the Jurymen to attempt to understand them.

+ See §.│ │
Similar Items
  • Title: [11 May 1808 Ch.V. §.4.3. I]
    Description: 11 May 1808

    Ch.V. §.4.3.

    I. Reasons

    Ch.V. Advantage

    §.4./3./ Jury independent

    3. Advantage the 3 d. The Jury released from their dependance [on] the Judge.

    1. In relation to a Jury Trial what seems to be desired is, and what it seems to be taken for granted will be - is, that whatsoever decision may come to be delivered in the name of the Jury - the decision, the verdict of the Jury, shall be an opinion framed in the minds of individuals of whom the Jury has been composed.

    2. What does not seem to be desired - in Scotland at least, howsoever it may be in England - is that under the name of the Jury, any such decision should be pronounced which in truth has not been their decision, but the decision of the Judge.

    3. So far as concerns the fixation of the sum of money to be paid by the defendant in the name of damages, no doubt but that within the compass of the Jury box the source of the decision, and in so far of the fate[?] of the parties, is always to be found: but as to the question whether any thing at all shall be paid under the name of damages - or any other shall be paid, that is among the questions which the decision of which depends in every case not upon the Jury but the Judge.

    Upon the Judge it depends, as above, to take up or start a question of law out of any word he pleases: out of any word contained in the instrument of the demand call it declaration, call it indictment, call it information, and on the occasion of that word, to go into the enquiry concerning the import of any other word or words, wheresoever they may be to be found.
  • Title: [29 April 1808 §.14. I. Reasons]
    Description: 29 April 1808

    §.14.

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §.14. Jury Trial improvable

    §. │ │ By the simplicity and clearness thus given to the state of the question, Jury trial would to the extent of the application given to it in Scotland, be employed in a state nearer approaching to perfection than at present it is in England.

    1. Whatsoever beneficial effects may be or be supposed to be attached, in fact, to Jury Trial as conducted in English practice, will be found referable either to the mode of procedure connected with it, or to the composition of the judicatory. Those which stand attached to the mode of procedure ought to be placed to that account, and not to that of the composition of the judicatory, unless in such instances, if any, in which the advantages attached to the mode of procedure, could not be given to it under a judicatory any otherwise composed.

    2. If in Jury trial there be any beneficial points exclusively attached to the composition of the judicatory they can attach no otherwise than in proportion to the magnitude of the share which the Jury really possess and habitually exercise in the determination of the decision, the verdict as it is called, which passes under their name.
  • Title: [18 May 1808 I. Reasons Ch.V]
    Description: 18 May 1808

    I. Reasons

    Ch.V. Advantage

    §.9./8./ Arbitrary power ousted

    Under the English system of Jury trial whether, in virtue and by means of such influence as they possess in regard to the fate of the cause on which the Jury pronounces their decision given as their verdict, or as[?] would have to pronounce such decision if the cause attained that length, any deterrent to justice in any shape does actually take place is a question the examination of which belongs not to this place.

    What does belong, to this place, and what is here submitted, is - that in the system of procedure in which Jury trial is an ingredient, a considerable number of features are to be seen, and have been already indicated, any one of which, would, if the same system were applied to Scotland, be sufficient to render the power of the Judge in a high degree arbitrary, reducing that of the Jury to little more than an empty shew: - but that under the proposed system no one of these features would have place. These are:

    1. The rule of action in no more settled state than that of unwritten law - Correspondent advantage - Conversion of the rule of action out of the state of unwritten to that of written law.

    2. The question of law not as when clearly distinguished from that of fact - by that means both questions taken out of the hands of the Jury by the Judges at pleasure - Correspondent advantage.

    3.

    4. On the principle of nullification, a principle which of itself is sufficient to put into the power of the Judge, more particularly to the prejudice of the plff's side of the cause it takes the fate of the cause compleatly out of the hands of the Jury, and at any time, forespeak[?] the plaintiffs demand, on grounds that have no sort of, connection with the justice of it. Correspondent advantage by means of Exclusion of the principle of nullification.

    5. On the principle of fictions another principle, which, as often as it be[?] set to work, the Judge has put it in his own power to do whatsoever he pleased.