1884.] 
“ Technical Trials .” 
345 
systematically refuse to undertake any investigation which 
may ultimately compel them to give evidence before a Court 
of Law. They decline to accept a position which may sub- 
ject them to insults for which neither the law nor public 
opinion gives them any redress. No less do they objedt to 
be supposed capable of wresting the truths of Science for a 
fee, or to serve the interests of any man. Hence it fre- 
quently happens that the public lose the advantage of having 
those truths, as bearing upon the case, expounded by the 
highest authorities. 
But how is this unsatisfactory condition of things to be 
amended ? A recent writer proposes that for such trials 
there should be a new and distindt kind of jury empanelled, 
consisting of men more or less acquainted with the physical 
or natural sciences, and accustomed, in virtue of their 
calling, to observe fadts and to draw thence accurate con- 
clusions. 
Such “more special” juries should consist of medical 
men, pharmaceutical chemists, engineers, chemical analysts, 
works’ chemists, architedts, &c. It is urged that at present 
much time is wasted because the jury do not understand the 
technicalities of the case. If we suppose a trial concerning 
the novelty of a machine. The language in which its 
different parts and their movements are described is to the 
twelve good and true men, — whether “ common ” or 
“ special ” — about as intelligible as if it were given in choice 
Sanskrit. The jury do not clearly understand the profes- 
sional witness. What makes the matter worse is that, very 
often, counsel is in the same predicament. Further, one of 
his ordinary fundtions is, if he cannot confuse the witnesses 
called on the opposite siddf at any rate to prevent the jury 
from forming a corredt opinion as to the fadts brought for- 
ward, and as to the conclusions to which they point. Now, 
it is submitted, that a jury of the new proposed kind would 
have at the very outset a serious advantage. They would 
understand the technical language used ; they would be able 
to decide, of their own knowledge, whether the evidence 
given on either side was in accordance with known fadts and 
with established theories, and they would see diredtly and 
not through the somewhat perturbing medium of counsel, to 
what conclusions such evidence pointed. It is further sub- 
mitted — and not without a certain amount of truth — that, 
before such a jury, expert witnesses would be exceedingly 
cautious in advancing nothing of a doubtful nature, and 
would simply tell “ the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth,” according to their belief and knowledge. 
VOL. VI. (THIRD SERIES) 2 A 
