JURY'S CONDUCT CRITICISED

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 72, 17 December 1937, Page 9

JURY'S CONDUCT CRITICISED

-Prees Association.)

Letters to Court After Damages Claim NEW TRIAL REFUSED

(By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Last Night. Two letters sent by the jury to the Supreme Court following a collision case in whihc they had awarded £1250 damages to the widow i'or the death of her husband. but had answered the issues in sueh a way that the verdict amounted to one for the defendlnt, resulted in comment from the Chief ^Justice, Sir Michael Myers, to-day when a motion was brought by Ihe widow for judgment or a new trial. TTis Honour said that the only infer- . ence that could be drawn was that if the jury had understood the legal effect of their answers they would have answered one of the questions dishonestly. It was a striking commentary .on the jury teystem. The original action was brought by Ada Payne, a widow, of Kaiwarra, against Dunstan John Burney, a glass merchant, of Wellington. The issues put to the jury were: (1) Was the defendant guilty of negligence materially contributing to the accident? (2) Was the deceased guilty of negligence materially contributing to the accident? The third issue Telated to the assetesment of damages. The jury answered "yes" to the first issue,' and "yes^ in a lesser degree" to the second, and awarded £1250 damages. The jury the following day Bent a lotter saying theyv had learned that the verdict had gone contrary to their intentions and desired to bring to the notice of the Court that it was he unanimous desire of the jury that the £1250 damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. Had the effect of their verdict been understood, the jury said, the answer to issue two would have been "no." Saving the Motorist. The second letter to the regiatrar a week later said that the jury had had no difficulty in answering ' ' yes ' ' to the first question. They first decided to answer "no" to the second issue, and awarded damages. Then they thought that the motorist, as a result of the answers, might b§ in trouble later, so they answered the second issue as they finally did, without impairing the plaintiff 's chances of seouring damages. and at the same time helping the motorist to some extent. To-day 's action was brought on the grounds that no third issue of substantial cause of the accident was put to the jury, that the direction to the jury as to the issues was misunderstood, and that the non-direction of the Judge as to the legal consequences resulting in the finding of negligence of bs>th defendant driver and the deceased, Henry Payne, amounted to a misdirection. At to-day 's hearing his Honour said: "What I did was to submit two plain and simple questions of fact for the purpose of obtaining the honest and conscientious answers of the jury. The legal effect, therefore, had nothing to do with the jury. All they had to do was to answer those questions honestly and the legal efifect became then a matter for the Court. They did answer those questions quite honestly." Judge's Strictures. "Then, if you please, the day after their verdict is given, and they learn somehow that the legal eifect of their true answers may be a verdict for the defendant, they turn round andi naively say, 'Oh, if we had known that, we would have answered the second issue no instead of yes.' The only inference is that it would have answered the second question dishonestly." His Honour said the jury had no right to send these communications and he did not know how the communications had been arranged among them. He did) not know who, but vsomeone must have $een them aud discussed it among them. _ # Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. A. B. Sievwright, said that counsel had no, communication with them. His Honour said he accepted that at once of course, but somebody must have discussed the matter with the jury. His Honour said he had heard nothing to alter the view he had formed when the jury returned their verdict. The motion for a new trial would he dismissed.