JURORS & GAMING ACT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 131, 26 February 1921, Page 8

JURORS & GAMING ACT

ANOTHER DISAGREEMENT THE CHIEF JUSTICE SPEAKS OUT The re-trial of .Tames Patterson, alleged to have been carrying on the business of a bookmaker, was held in the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of twelve. As on tho previous trial, on Monday last, the jurors disagreed. The jury was empanelled as follows:— William Lewis Morgan (foreman), Joseph Douglas May, William Hugh Dick, Charles Victor Geale, Charles Harman, Francis Groves, Herbert Thomas Avery, Hugh Sih de, Gregory Patrick Doyle, Henry Frank Darkins, Solomon Morris, Shclak Russell. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and the prisoner was represented by Mr. 11. F. O’Leary. The evidence brought by the prosecution was similar to that adduced at the first trial. Constables M’Cullough and Murphy and other witnesses gave evidence as to the making of bets. During Mr. O’Leary’s -.ddress to the jury, His Honour stated that the onus was on the prisoner to prove that hs had not been carrying on the business of a bookmaker. Summing up, His Honour stated that other regulations—the Customs Regulation Act, for example—laid down that tho accused should prove himself innocent. The onus to prove the case was not on the prosecutton. The questions to be considered in the present case were, (a) Did accused make my bet with M'Cullough; and (b) did he make any bet with Murphy? In His Honour's opinios, the accused was guilty, unless the two constables concerned had committed perjury. The jury retired at 11.35 a.m., and returned at 3.35 p.m., the jurors having disagreed as to their verdict. "The facts and the law of this .castore equally plain.’’ said His Honour in discharging t.lje jury. "I cannot understand the decision of the jurors. I hope they do not approve of gambling. It goes to show that it is necessary that the law relative to the unanimity of a jury should be changed. ... In Scotland, the majority is eight from a jury of fifteen, and in France seven from twelve. . . . I presume that in further prosecutions under the Gaming Act some other form will have to be chosen. It is clear that it is useless to try such cases in Wellington. Tn Wellington justice cannot be administered when an infraction of the Gaming Act is charged. Who is to blame for that is for the people to decide, not for me.” His Honour refus’d to order a third trial, whereupon Mr. O’Leary asked whether the prisoner could bo discharged. “He can go, of course,” said His Honour. “'Whether or not there will be further proceedings will rest with the Crown.” .Patterson was discharged accordingly.