MUNGANA CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 22 August 1931, Page 5

MUNGANA CASE

THE JURY RETIRE.

(Australian Press Association.)

BRISBANE, August 21

Mr Macrossan to-day continued his address on behalf of Mr McCormack, in the Muugand case. Mr Macrossan contended that evidence had disclosed no corruption between Mr McCoimack and Mr Reid. In fact, theie was no evidence of a gift of any description. The whole of the circumstances involved a legitimate mining venture, which was undertaken, n t hile M* McCormack was exc e.smg any executive office, but when he was merelv a member of Parliament. The Crown case, said MacrovKan was a. talc horn'of political expediency—full ;>J sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Mr (loss Philro, addressing the jury on liehalf of Mr E. G. Theodore described I .'■<! case as being “purely a pulitical prosecution,” behind which lie f aid, “an attempt is being iimdo lo slab Mr Theodore in the bm.lt, AlrMiGi.il (Crown Counsel), wauteil io get Mr Theodore into the witless hps i.nd thus bs able to tionricn It's pi titical opponent, and t-o have the- last say-to the jury. The CroiMi would not have had a leg to. i.land i.yen had the witness, Mr Poole Loot* ain't) Indn-y !” He added that t.v.i 1,1,11.0 important witnesses for the rlefonto likewise were dead. (ihilil ,1 astir u Blair began his suminlll• up al out noon. JIIU9BANE August 21. Summing up Ihe MmigftPfl ease, the Chief dnstim said: “A singular feature of Ibo i-uso is that we have our |?av* urem.it had the King presenting an inchctmtnt against two men who, for many years, were his sworn advisers in Queensland, and one of whom now is his sworn adviser in the Parliament of Australia. This is both singular and regrettable.” After explaining to the jury the principles of evidence and aspects which disclosed suspicion, the Judge commented on the. failure of defendants to give evidence. He said there was nothing in the world to prevent persons sued, or charged, from refraining from giving evidence. The jury certainly ; had no means to decide the truth or otherwise of the defendants’ answers to the interrogatories. They, however, should decide whether .enough had been given to warrant an or a contradiction, and if the source of such exaggeration or contradiction was available, and was not used. The jury was then entitled to draw certain conclusions. The summing up was completed at 5.45 p.m. The jury announced that there was no hope of an agreement for some time, and they were locked up for the night.

The court adjourned till the morning.