1
results found in
21 ms
Page 1
of 1
[094-277v]
11 Feb y 1807
Letter IV
[...?] 6.7.8.9 [...?]
1. If every man who wishes for a Jury trial has /may have/ one, nothing more can be derived by the most passionate enthusiastic admirers.
2. Where neither party wishes for a Jury, it is with respect to the main end of justice security against misdecision, unless at least in the opinion of all those to whom it belongs to judge and in respect of those ends which regard delay, vexation and expence it is evidently uncandescence[?] and repugnant.
3. To consider /Taking the matter on the footing of/ delay alone, place Jury trial in this respect upon the best footing possible, a Judge will always be able to give a decision soever without them with a Jury.
4. Judicature by a Judge, a single Judge - is the most natural, the most simple mode. Supposing either party to be dissatisfied with the decision pronounced by the Judge, it is matter of great comfort and advantage to him to be able to lay his cause before a Jury, of whose impartiality he is afraid. But it is time enough for him to appeal from the decision of the Judge, when he is dissatisfied with it: and it is time enough for him to be dissatisfied with it, when he knows what it is.
Most admirable, Jury trial, my lord in the character of a medicine! a specific, a very panacea for one /some/ of the disorders to which the judicial system of judicature is exposed. As medicine, yes:- but how is it these quacks employ it? They give it instead as daily bread /food/. As well give opinion in that character or the bark[?], instead of bread. Give it? no: not in half the causes cases in which they charge for it are given. And why give it in reality[?], why give it in [...?]?- Why? because of the Apothecary's bills they make for it.
Similar Items
-
Title: [[094-469v] 24 Jan y 1807 Letter]Description: [094-469v] 24 Jan y 1807 Letter IV Resolut. 6.7.8.9. Juries By postponing /confining/ the use of Jury judicature to the case where it is called for by one or other party in the way of Appeal, from the decision of the permanent single Judge (say in Scotland the Sheriff Depute) all the use would be made of it that the most passionate admirer of this mode of judicature, having the ends of justice in detail before him, and applying human reason to the subject, could possible /well/ desire. He in whose disfavour a decision by the Judge has been pronounced, if he is dissatisfied with it, and chooses to have a Jury, he has one: if he is not dissatisfied, or if being dissatisfied, he does not wish for a Jury, why force him to have one? Lawyers excepted (for in civil cases trial by Jury, is of course /constantly//without any exception/ trial with lawyers) what mortal alive can be the better for it? Supposing Jury trial in the first instance to be adverse to the ends of justice in respect of delay, vexation and expence, is there common sense, and that in that /those/ respects trial by a permanent single Judge is more conducive to those ends, is there common sense in forcing a man to act as if he were dissatisfied with the decision of such single Judge, before he know what it is?
-
Title: [Jan y 1807 Scotch Reform To L d Grenville]Description: Jan y 1807 Scotch Reform To L d Grenville Facienda Juries why on appeal only Whosoever chooses to have /submitt his cause to/ a Jury may provided the cause /question/ is of the number of those that are physically speaking capable of being tried by a Jury, may have one if he pleases. To any useful purpose what more need any man wish to have to do with Juries? Whosoever finds himself /sees cause for being/ dissatisfied with the decision of a single Judge may betake himself to this superior or supposed superior, security against misdecision, if he pleases. But if a man is not dissatisfied /before it is in his power to have been dissatisfied/, with the decision of a single Judge, why force him into any other hands? But with the opinion of a single Judge, I will not ask how can he possibly be dissatisfied, but I will ask, with what reason can he be dissatisfied, before he knows what it is. The question being, how far and in what respects is the part borne by a Jury conducive /subservient/ to the ends of Justice, the first thing to be done is to advert[?] to the distinction between the different ends of justice. This done my Lord, my answer is very simple /short and simple/. In the first instance I do not employ Juries. why? because in the first instance the employment of /giving employment to/ Juries is inevitably attended with that factitious delay, vexation and expense which by the profit attached to it (has begotten in the heart of lawyers /heart of English lawyers/ his impassioned love for Juries.) has secured to that object of interested idolatry the devotion of the English lawyers and his dupes.
-
Title: [29 April 1808 §.13. I. Reasons]Description: 29 April 1808 §.13. I. Reasons for the Work §.13. Jury trial extendable §.13. By the simplicity and clearness thus given to the state of the question, Jury trial ought, if deemed eligible, be applied to cases to a great extent, to which it could not be applied otherwise. 1. In Scottish procedure the application of Jury trial in civil cases is subject to this difficulty. Without leaving to the Judge the option of employing it or no, and if yes, to settle the question to which it shall be employed to give an answer, you can not introduce it. For it is only by means of the English formularies that it is made to take place, in such manner as to furnish answers, to pre-determined questions, of course, without depending on the pleasure of the Judge: and those formularies are (as per §. │ │ art. │ │) inapplicable to Scottish judicature procedure. 2. But if this latitude of power be left to the Judge, a property which by many will be considered as constituting the most important use of it: viz. the substituting a decision framed by the assemblage of impermanent and unlawlearned Judges to that of the permanent and lawlearned Judge or Judges, will not be given to it.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1