DUBLIN CRIMINAL COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19789, 13 February 1928, Page 4

DUBLIN CRIMINAL COURT

A PERPLEXING DILEMMA ACCUSED REFUSED TO PLEAD. LONDON, February 11. A perplexing dilemma occurred at the Dublin criminal court, when two youths named Russell and Price, who were charged with being members of an illegal military force, refused to plead. The judge ordered the jury to decide whether the prisoners were mute of malice or by a visitation of God. The police gave evidence that the prisoners were able to speak, but the foreman of the jury announced that there was no chance of an agreement. The judge asked why. The foreman kept silent, and the judge ordered the jury to reconsider its verdict.

The foreman again reported a. disagreement, and the judge replied: “It is a long day, gentlemen. Try again.” Ho then heard other cases, but the jury persisted in its verdict, and the judge discharged them, saying that the verdict was perverse. Meanwhile James Donnelly, who was charged with escaping from prison, similarly refused to plead, and the jury similarly reported that it failed to agree whether he was dumb or maliciously mute, Donnelly interrupted: “To save trouble I plead guilty.” A juryman offered to explain, but the judge demanded silence, and added; “ The prisoner has now spoken. He says he is guilty, and I direct that a plea, of guilty be recorded according to law.’’