COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2727, 23 March 1916, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL

JURY'S PECULIAR VERDICT

I When tie Court.-of. Appeal _ sittings were resumed yesterday ■ morning, the bench was occupied by their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert_ Stout), Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. .Justice .Hosking. : The case before the Court was that of H.M. tha King versus Albert James Adams ind .Robert Ralph Carr, a, question of law reserved for argument by His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman at' the last criminal sessions in Wellington.. Adams and Carr wore members of the crew of ft.M.S. Corinthic, and they were arranged oil a. ciiargo of having stolen £60 worth of surgical instruments.from the s.s. Corinthic. The defence sot lip was that they were so drunk that they were incapable of forming a criminal intention. The jury found a verdict of guilty, with no criminal intent, as the ace was committed under the influence of temporary insanity. The Judn-o reserved tlio question as to the meaning of this verdict, to ho argued before the Court of Appeal, and the argument was taken yesterday; The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. TV. Salmond, K.C.) ' appeared for the Crown, while Mr. P. TV. Jackson appeared for Carr. The other accused (Adams) appeared m person. " Mr. Jackson submitted that the verdict was one of acquittal. He contended that the words in the verdict, referring to insanity, had no meaning at all. -There was no evidence before the jury as to insanity, and they had no right to take upon themselves to find that the men were insane. Adams briefly addressed the Court on his own behalf. He declared that he had no criminal intent at the time the offence was committed. Ho was suffering from "severe drunkenness.' The Solicitor-General' contended that there was no % such thing as not guilty on the ground of insanity. There wero three alternatives: Firstly, that the yer-' diet was one of guilty; secondly, that it was one of not guilty, amounting to mi acquittal; or thirdly, that; it was an improper and imperfect verdict, warranting a new trial. He suggested that the remarkable verdict was a compromiso as far as the jury was concerned. It was neither a verdict of guilty or not guilty. , . The Court reserved decision.