Page 4 Advertisements Column 4

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2009, 19 February 1907, Page 4

JURY ROOM SECRETS. ROYAL COMMISSIONER’S FINDINGS. THE CMCiv-WIL LIS CASE. An outline of tho findings of .Tudgo Fitzlmrdingo, who s:it ns a Royal Commission to onquiro whether any person had boon guilty of misconduct ■in connection with tho recent trial of Crick, Willis, and Bath at Sydnoy, was cabled here last week. Sydney files to hand give fuller particulars. Tho report states: — AN EXCITABLE FOREMAN. “Of twelve jurors empanelled, live had had previous experience of crirninnl trials, four had had littlo experience, and three had had no previous experience whatever. Albert' Hniublyn Warner had luul some previous experience in civil and criminal trials, and as ho was elected foreman of this jury he had perhaps more opportunities of, and reason for, noticing what went on in the jury-room than his fellow-jurors. lie was of an excitable temperament, and prone to suspicion against his character for sobriety. Not oven a hint was mado room, so much so that he and others of the jury became suspicious, and agreed to cease all discussion while Felton was on the jury premises. I find that they had some reason for suspicion. As a rather unfair and unwise attack was made on Warner bv the counsel who appeared for the Sheriff in his address, I have reported more fully upon Warner’s evidence than upon that of any other witness. AN UNFORTUNATE MEETING. “It was contended that the suspicion entertained by some ol the jury was well founded from the fact that immediately after tho trial one of the Sheriff’s officers (Burgis), who had boon in charge of tlio jury, and ono of the Sheriff’s olficers (Lamerton), who had been in charge ol the accused, dined togothor with Jim Crick, brother of one of the defendants, in a public dining place in tho city It was admitted by Burgis and Lamborton that they were guests of Jim Crick immediately after tho closing of the trial. I was satisfied that tho mooting was purely accidental, and had not been prearranged. At the same time it was unfortunate that such a meeting should have taken place.

EAVESDROPPING NOT PROVEN. “I find that the officers who were appointed (Lane and Burgis) carried out their duties faithfully and well, oxcept on three or four occasions, wliou they allowed Felton, another Sheriff’s officer (not sworn in), to go into and remain in the jury quarters when no oxcuso of duty could bo truthfully raised. On these occasions probably not much harm was done, yot it was most improper for these officers to bo in the jury quarters when their presence was not required, and also very improper for them to allow a third officer, oven though lie was supervising officer, so to remain in the jury-room. On one other occasion after the case was closed, and after the. jury had retired to consider their verdict, two officers (Lane and Burgis) locked themselves and a third officer (Felton) in the jurors’ quarters. Their presenco behind locked doors was altogether unnecessary and highly improper. Whilst these officers were in that position they were accused by the foreman of listening at the door of the dormitory. I do not find that charge proved, though by their conduct and position the officers laid themselves open to grave suspicion. GRAVE INDISCRETION.

“As to Felton, I find that on two occasions at least he committed very grave indiscretions. On one occasion ho discussed with a jury portion of the evidence of a material witness (Webster), and probably the value of the evidence of a witness (Fisher).to he called on the following day; and on one occasion Felton made an attempt to ascertain from the foreman the jury’s opinion of the address of one of the defendants, and of the presiding judge’s remarks thereon. It is also to he regretted that Felton, who was so often and for so long in the jury quarters, should on two or three occasions have been seen in close communication with the two defendants —Crick and AYillis; and although I find that on those occasions there is no evidence to show that he discussed any part of this case with either of the defendants, or disclosed anything that he had seen or heard in the jurors’ quarters (all the evidence was to the contrary), yet ho had opportunity for so doing, and that very naturally gave rise to suspicion in the minds of some of the jury and added to the suspicion they already had that Felton was taking an undue interest in what went on in the. jurors’ quarters. Felton was also indiscreet in holding a conversation with the juryman Brown apart from his fellow jurors, seeing that it was known by all the Sheriff’s officers that Brown had expressed an intention to acquit the accused irrespective of the evidence. JURYMEN AND THEIR PICNICS. “At the outings (or picnics) to which the jufy were taken on each Sunday, the Slioriff’s officers on two occasions, and the driver of the coach on one, had their midday meal with the jurors. That should not have been allowed. Jurors should on all ocasions ho kept together and apart from all other persons.

NO UNDUE INFLUENCE. “It was suggested that some of those summoned as jurors were sounded as to their opinion in the case about to ho tried. On that matter there is no evidence of any weight. In all probability no such interforenee b a pponed. A JURYMAN CASTIGATED. “I do not find that the trial was in any sense a farce or a travesty of justice. That the trial would in all probability he abortive was apparent to the foreman and to other jurors of experience so soon as one of tho jurors (Andrew Brown), actuated either by ignorance, obstinacy, studidly, or by some -dishonest motive, stilted almost at the commencement of tho trial that ho had made up his-mind to acquit tho defendants. Although when ho was urgently requested by tho foreman and his fellow jurors to consider his oath and decide the case on tho evidence, he made a promise to do so, yet as ho apparently paid little heed to tho witnesses in court, and declined to discuss tho evidence in the jury room, it was plain that lie remained false to his oath, and that was more clear when his wife on one or two occasions attended tho court in companv with Mrs Willis, wife of one of tho "defendants, with whom she (Airs Brown) was laughing and talking ; also at a later-stage, when Brown made an application to one of the officers that a priest should he sent for to advise him how to decide. With that exception there was no apparent reason why the trial should have been abortive. .

Amongst the jurymen wlio sought to be excused from service when the criminal sessions of the Wellington S.C. opened (remarks the Post), was n man possessed of a wooden leg. His counsel submitted that the juryman would suffer great inconvenience and pain if compelled to sit in a cramped witness-box. Mr. Justice Cooper expressed himself that it would be very inconvenient for the juryman to take liis leg off. Ho would be excused. One juryman sought exemption on the ground that he was now very busy, and could ill spare the time to attend tile sessions. His Honor remarked that many people were iu the same position, hut a man must do liis duty when called upon.to serve. Exemption could not be. given. Exemptions were granted in several cases wherein medical certificates of illness wore tendered.

At a meeting of domestic servants of Christchurch on "Wednesday it was unanimously resolved to register as a union and. to demand from employers a scale of wages and certain specified hours of employment. The union will he registered next week. It was resolved that a week’s work he 68 hours. "Provision was made for starting work at 6.30.. but. in the event of the day beginning lialf-an-hour later, the half-hour will he added to the end of the day. The scale of pay to the various classes of domestic workers was agreed upon, varying from 12s 6d for nurse-maids to 2os for housekeepers, generals receiving 15s per week. It was agreed that a circular he printed and distributed to each employer of a domestic servant, asking if she is prepared to grant the wages fixed for the various classes of work. The mistress will he asked to sign the printed demand, which will be filed at the office of the union. In the event of refusal the mistress will he cited to appear before the Arbitration Court.

N.Z. Government Veterinarian approves Sykes’s Abortion Cure. When the Government' Veterinarian endorses a preparation it means that lie is satisfied that it is the best. Captain Young is the Government Veterinarian in charge of Taranaki Province—tho largest dairying district in the Colony. cTliis is what he says of Sykes’s Animal Abortion Cure: “A most useful preparation in handy form with superior advantages over tabloids, for the prevention and cure of abortion, and one which I can safely recommend.—A. 11. Young. M.R.C.V.S., Govt-. Vet. in charge of Taranaki Province.”