( 434 ) 
IJuly, 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
* * The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements « 
* options expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
of their respective authors. 
TECHNICAL TRIALS. 
“An Old Technologist” would reform Technical Trials; but 
while he sees a few flaws of the adtual, he has keenei sight fo 
the possible flaws of the possible. He thinks that of all avv 
proceedings the least satisfactory are Technical Trials - I 
question not their badness, but their eminence of badness, 
him hear trials for libel or slander, and he may think them 
“ ]3y merit raised to that bad eminence. 
Let him next hear trials for conspiracy, wherein the conspiracy 
^ itseT the crime, and the right of eminence may be again 
transferred (sic); then let him hear the mock form of trial foi 
“ contempt W Vourt,”-" if form it may be called which form 
has none ” — and again he may transfer the palm. I hen le 1 
ask all classes what is their practical trust in law and its admi- 
nistration and he will get a unanimous opinion that is hard to 
reconcile with the established farts,— that Law is perfert reason, 
S wisdom of the Bench, and the honour of the Bar. I dare 
onL say that I have failed to find them : don’t destroy my re- 
mailing faith in the jury ; even juries are mortal and need 
reform. Whether it would be good reform to let the Cou „ 
appoint experts as assessors to judges, I doubt. Technology 
admits the Court’s incapacity to decide questions of Science: 
n P.lptrhp same ignorant Court decide among scientific 
men > Heaven preserve Ae Homoeopath defendant if the Court 
Should choose an Allopath assessor! Woe betide the patentee 
under an assessor without faith in the Patent Laws . And if the 
assessor is to “ expound to the jury the conclusions of Science, 
j tn K e exempt from examination and cross-examination, one 
•„ht o-uess that these conclusions are either so proved that they 
may^be* taken from a text-book, or so disputable that they may 
be o An V 0?d Technology?”' fears that technical language can be 
understood only by the technical ; but a trial needs little tec i- 
“cal language, and that little can be explained Among botanists 
a botanist speaks of Myosotis, Ranunculus, and Bdhs, but among 
common folk he speaks of forget-me-nots, buttercups, and daisies. 
