JUS
-collqya guidar no guh yd Labro e "ot Tebτo us niazdo es sanit
molaiviⱭ yroonsd) eds of J5A Bwjani but, sɗa yď benginus avaztaŰ
** noing dołdw 1833mO 10 SRUSO vis al .d .‡quod ererquo eds to
hma ,YUT & JUGrid iw beltd need evad bltrow đok etutænibut arij
to moisaninuxa bagnofong vas najuluper aroŤÍAM 10 888uso ni .o
nokragitasvui fpool to piliðnsloa no asmuo996 10 87пewoeh
abam vijnsiusvnos sa Job eris to noinigo exð ni Jonnso doifiw
.yum & NJ tw
oris midtbw [lat Noiriw #18‡sæt to aevossaK)
MOIJAJHINÌmbe siis 101 ameitos era,avoda d bre a anoisqBOKO
-nsidrag to moispisanih asit (anwaney besseoob to asisize erts to
noldgreben adt (8706998 qiriztenersq to guidar art bus agiria-
Terito to anoisroq to gulalar odreage from to swedioerot to
moltsoititoen sile ,adaims to nel tunexe arte abnal no asgusɗo
,adqerurijani neddiw nerde bus abeob to shins gaiddee no
to qidebtsw gift (87OFTJnoo mistreo to sonarroting oltioeqs
£16
ர்
.BSJ SJRS agnetai 30 #150 9ɗft bus atnstal
(00080 VRs rebro oJ IOWOG Bari Stoð e
cd Hot ni seoso ní bưя VYJET
.$
erit gaiver 10 yun ve Latue a evad of Jagir a don avad neidisq
ad of Laing eño Tarno van d'we' sit,+1 beelorexe den eval zdą)
To sitiw eeïnter ♬ vď no eroaaores dittw MUIDZER FWoð ere yď biod
*GTOGBORNa Juoddłw
wal guitaixe erit to źnemacsie airit dix MOTE
*£***** erit eva! moitos na of beltisų erit Jade anotyảo mì đi
wal nom :00 (Le ni vurk ve fatur toi salonexe of sacodo yorit
to arsmolaairmen Isze♬ súð me‚fotriv nt saoda nt neve
#0880
10 Viseesamara el vot e to neiznevretul sit hetroqen 0881
(erotros moonsif) ni ddati cedo Jon svari vede tud anove iɗoals
鬻
,900 via bra
to swtsa eld to enh Ivony Isotros7q Yna asi oifw dowa to Letns vrosostattaa erid dadd wond dami,acoltos visenas” nowa ni asit? .ỵtifidiezoget facitosnq a zi yub s dolw anottos
401
cases would only be asked for by parties desirous of impeding
the administration of justice. That Juries in such cases are
net usually desirable is the opinion of that mest experienced
and competent bedy of men the English Judges, or else when the
Judicature Act was paased and the rules of 1873 and 1883 were
framed, parties would have been given a right to trial by Jury
in the Chancery Division. In the rare Chancery cases, in which
the Judge sees that a Jury would be of assistance, he has power
to order one either on his own metien er en the application
of a party, but to give parties the right to force a Jury on a
Judge would be in the great mejerity of these cases to give
parties the right to prevent a fair trial of the action.
The proposed amendment of the Law in
addition to effecting the mischief mentioned above will by the
repeal of Sec. 290 (3) enable parties to compel trial by Jury
in Commej Law Cases which even before 1850 were tried without a
Jury, the Common Law Judges having found fair trial with a Jury
impossible.
It may be suggested that parties are not
likely to demand a Jury in an unsuitable case, but I can assure
you from my personal experience that they have done so in the
past. One netable instance happened recently in a case in which
a contractor was xx claiming for the value of work done on a
contract, a case in which intricate details of engineering
and building work had to be valued by the Court and the Court
had to decide whether certain werk, which collapsed during a
typhoon, collapsed by reason of insufficiency of the design
er had work. The Defendants, whe had to pay something in any
event, fought hard to get a Jury. The Court refused a Jury
under the power given by Section 290 (3) and ordered a trial with an engineer assessor and in consequence many days trial
were saved by the assesser being able to view and examine the werk with expert knowledge and to make calculations which ne
26830
Jury