CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9] — Page 394

OU

irenawa

na auwone more nue! Auchantoh wie to poinaennog

.00 molde fval withND

sub blaus erit dat bustelo ettiinia ··

special arrangement.

usaabne Reh one of

27th. April.

boramane nd solvton ensvisa tot acuabnetsh wlt

The application for a Jury was made on

387

to para e 2 rteva vng of barsbso ed aênahmetel erfå der hun

.nak ng swarf g ot bebrava ada 3.mie es mure five man! 666,01%

to 80x jak Dirtenute not 80,£\ be talo owls attionlaÍZ

.mua h-rier detit

mult på dinw ubule hepard #??ijnisiq am

„ft koolbgħna VTech et al to hendunt noitofbel¬ul Iandeiro

ed of modne mit tot hetima a. ushue?»C

cut belige Roquenesc etulundert erit bas quit I-bosqe vi bebe

of uoltokbat- % fani-1-0 22 mont børstene det of nolcoR SET

uuttokbatak vårazimbi ede

norbim AT

Tatepet at bearsimit mA.De me at aLT

Howend benelle de No' armsweb de 0-0, PSS.: erion Teroget o*,2001

at va nauhustad -dt 3. sisa els ultiw noi:sennoo ni doekenos 10

dogond bonelle fojų „Snsd, intdev sot me to zruqrotttiJAIT

dominoo na ni voMTAY 'adrebetalt er to Jongens ni nedod

Aoi [ROSYNO Kondo garcony blvar duela end 'smit do625 8 7 of

9 If I HI .

.00 ea mao: stoff ** yg hea:bot, døds of Isupe rolltow .4.7,eng? to sno GAW hayfovul noitesup mit 38. & auolydo berbuyer wla mo the *on blan to blon bellum antifoam: erit orsinger na sile ended gol, & al tw what a stotel Lain A .sol

a bea dost o anofdam pus cute quifash nott Incuding falnega 8 tot bedes ventizik A doua sutinkach atnsbosted

bizione a ir no

or butas NOM

Է

beauter untra: 5 Robin mit Devewordokily,*** Java,DUZErshaur h£icos xénabostel wild as te 20

lebat to don his wal to one we berlovek qoftasup silt neblaues other itsonable coniq asïsé Isind erfü

With regard to these six cases it appears

to me that of the four quoted by the Chief Justice the 1st and 3rd. should have been tried before a Jury. As regards the 2nd. and 4th. there does not seem to have been the slightest justifi- -cation for the withholding a jury. The total sum involved in

these four cases is $1,940,000.

Turning to the two cases I have incorporat- -ed in this memorandum the first, a small matter, should proper-

-ly have been tried in Admiralty Jurisdiction with Assessors.

That it was first entered in Original Jurisdiction may seem to suggest that the plaintiffs desired

the Chief Justice to deal with the case by himself and free of

Assessors and only made the transfer to the other Court when a

special jury was asked for.

The second case is a very important one,

involving a large sum of money and an undoubted question of

fact and is unquestionably a fitting case for a Jury.

With regard to the letter from the Chief

Justice, in paragraph 2 he states applications for a Jury are

not frequently made. The Chamber of Commerce never said applica-

-tions were frequently made, but what we do say is that where

there are important facts involved, the application for a Jury

should be allowed as a matter of course even though objected

to by the other side, and not to be refused.

The remark that only four cases (in four

years) have been refused is beside the mark and has no bearing

on this question.

Paragraphs 3-4 I have just replied to.

Paragraph 5. This I deny in toto. I

consider the cases quoted by the Chief Justice clearly de-

-monstrate the necessity for an alteration of the law and this

point