date

11 May 1808 Ch.V. §.4.3. I
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.
Similar Items
  • Title: [11 May 1808 1. Reasons Ch.V]
    Description: 11 May 1808

    1. Reasons

    Ch.V.

    §.4.

    5. Under English Jury Trial, the plain truth is - if it may be spoken, that except the fixation of the sum for damages where the Judge allows any to be awarded, and except the very rarely exemplified case where it happens to the affections of the Jury to take part in the business, the decision, under the name of the Jury, is in effect the decision of the Judge: and instead of a check, the part acted in the theater of Justice by these males [of the Jury], speaks as a siren to the Judge, diminishing, if not taking away entirely, that sense of responsibility on which the probity of men in high and public station in so great a degree depends (a).

    6. In my humble view of the matter every circumstance by which this sense is weakened belongs pro tanto to the catalogue of disadvantage: every thing by which it is strengthened, to the catalogue of advantage.

    7. It does not appear to me that [the] number of times which it should be in the power of the Judge to send a question to be tried by another Jury should have any certain limits: but what, at the same time, appears to me is - that every decision which passes under the name of the Jury ought really to be theirs, and that if the Jury, according to whatever may be the proposed composition of that judicatory, be not really fit to be trusted with the formation of the decisions intended to be delivered under their name, it will not be a benefit, but a nuisance.

    (a) Note stating instances from another paper.
  • Title: [29 April 1808 §.14. I. Reasons]
    Description: 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 §.│ │
  • Title: [6 Feb y 1808 Appeals 26 continued]
    Description: 6 Feb y 1808

    Appeals

    26 continued

    the more simple the form in which a question can be presented to any judicatory, and especially to a judicatory of which a Jury form a part, unquestionably the better. In a quick example for a Jury to form an estimate of the timw[?] that on the score of compensation ought to be allowed, supposing the money paid on the very day of the wrong done. A Judge of the subordinate class who has nothing to do /whose functions are performed without communication/ with the Jury, is employed to tax costs: the same Judge might with equal propriety, and much less difficulty be employed to compute interest on damages.

    27. Under the fee-gathering system So compleatly irreconcilable are the ends of justice with the ends of judicature, that after the exception made for the few instances in which in the chance /random/ [...?] process of compensation money under the name of damages avoided by inexperienced and uninstructed men without the aid /benefit/ of a simple[?] rule of instruction laid down /framed/ by authority for their assistance, the sum awarded happens instead of falling short of the mark is going beyond it, happens to hit it, it may with confidence and safety be affirmed, that an instance of adequate satisfaction made is without example in English practice. 28. The assertion might moreover be extended to the observance of the rule which /forbids/ forbids the suffering to man to profit by his vast[?] wrong, even it act[?] for the loss inflicted under the name of costs a check the force of which is in an[?] equal degree the [...?] of fashion, and bears no proportion to the end prevented out by that rule.