|
|
|
tion, providing for the holding of two intermediate terms
annually of the circuit courts at which no juries shall be
summoned. His primary object was to save time and
money to the people of the counties in the administration
of justice. There were many cases which did not require
the interposition of juries, either by law or by the consent
of the parties, and these intermediate terms would serve
for the trial of such cases. The great expense of the
attendance of juries and witnesses could thus be saved.
As the practice was now, jurymen were often detained
day after day in idleness in waiting on the courts, and
the consequence was that when the sheriff went around
there were all sorts of evasions and pretexts resorted to
to avoid jury service. Another reason for his amend-
ment was that it would facilitate the determination of liti-
gated causes and save much expense to litigants.
Mr. Syester thought there could be no objection to what
the gentlemen desired, but were they not encumbering
this constitution too much ? Would this not be making it
too stiff ? Everything wished for by the gentlemen could
be accomplished by act of the Legislature. This constitu-
tion was not the place for the detailed provisions of the
system, and it would scarcely be safe to put in it that in
all the counties of the State there should be but two terms
a year of the circuit courts at which jurors shall be sum-
moned. He (Mr. S. ) thought that there should be three
terms in Washington county.
Mr. Carter said the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Syester) was mistaken in the meaning of the amendment.
It only provided that there should be two terms at which
juries should not be summoned, but contained no prohi-
bition as to the number of times at which juries shall be
summoned.
Mr. Ford asked what the amendment proposed?
Mr. Mackubin said he proposed but four law terms dur
ing the year, two with juries and two without.
Mr. Ford could not see what benefit would accrue from
this limitation.
Mr. Archer thought the objections of the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Syester) were well taken. He
doubted the propriety of the amendment. The whole sub-
334
|
|
|
|
 |
