TRIAL INTERRUPTED

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 28, 17 February 1937, Page 6

TRIAL INTERRUPTED

—Press Association.)

Accused's Brother Spoke to Juryman

(By Telegraph

/ WANGANUI, Last Night. ' a brief conversation between a. member of the jury and the brother of an; accused person, resulted in a jury at thej Supreme Court, Wanganui, being dis-i jcharged to-day and a fresh trial beguni (with a new jury panel. His Honour, |Mr. Justice Smith, directed • such a jcourse to be taken to safeguard the ad•ministration of justice. j The accused was Paul Nodwell, aj single man, aged 57, charged with wil-j fully setting fire to his dwelling house.} The case was nearing its end and| accused had given evidence and wasj about to be cross-examined by the l crown prosecutor, Mr. N. R. Bain, who said he regretted to report that aj brother of accused and a member of the' •jury had been seeu in conversation justj outside the Court room as the jury were. •dispersing for lunch. His Honour: In that case yon had better call evidence. Detective James Murry deposed that he saw the two conversing and that he told the member of the jury, William Warren, he deemed it his duty to report the matter to the crown prosecut-. or. Warren, in evidence, said that he and' accused 's brother bumped into each other as they were going out of the door. All they discussed was the . weather. He had known accnsed's j brother some two months. John Henry . Nodwell, brother of1 accused, gave similar evidence, denying'1 that the case had been discussed but, merely the weather and passing the time of day. Mr. Bain: Did you know Warren was a member of the jury? Witness: I did not know. CounseS; Were you iu Court during the two days the case has been on? Witness: I came in just after the start but from where I was sitting I could not see the jury. "The main difficulty for me to .iotermine is whether accused 's' brother knew Warren was a member of the jury," said his Honour. "It seems extraordinary to me that he shouid not have known that. I think, though I am not prepared to say beyond any doubt. that accused 's brother knew Warren was on the jury. In such circumstanees it is important that a principle shouid be upheld that there tnust be no conversation between members of a jury and mernbers of the public during a trial. In those circumstanees and in regard to the f'aot that ifc .was accused's brother who spoke to the juryman, although they say they only discussed the weather, and accused's brother says he did not know he was talking to a juryman, I ought to take the responsibiiity Of discharging the present jury. I think that is the proper course to take in the administration of justice. I find, there is no evidence of any actual con-! versation between these two men but iuy view is that we cannot be absolutely certain of the object with which accused's brother spoke to tho juryman. Under the circumstanees the administration of justice would be best served by a new trial." The new trial was begun immediate-i * • :l