Jury Again Disagree

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 30, 5 February 1937, Page 7

Jury Again Disagree

In Trial of Mrs. Aves STRONG COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE Fer Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. For the third time a jury has failed to reach an agreement in the case of Isobel Annie Ayes, also known as Craike, a married woman, of Hastings, who has stood trial at Napier and twice at Wellington on seven charges of unlawfully using an instrument to proem 3 miscarriage. Tho third trial was concluded in tno Supreme Court, Wellington, to-day before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), and jury. Addressing the jury, Mr. Lusk reviewed the evidence of the 26 witnesses to be called for the Crown. When detectives visited accused's house at Hastings on June 25, 1936, he said, tAey found certain articles which might certainly be found in other households, but which, taken in conjunction with the other evidence, could have been used for the purpose of assisting to procure miscarriage. In the house were found also books of account showing a very extensive business and connecting up some of tho persons who were being called by the Crown. At the back of the section and in a duckpond iu an adjoining section the police had come on two places where the ground had been iccently disturbed, said Mr. Lusk. Investigation brought to light a human foetus and the body of an infant within four or six weeks of full-time delivery. Accused said she knew nothing about them and could not account for their presence. The ground was dug up and within a small area the remains of 20 other infants were found, none of them being fully de veloped. Most of them were buried in lime, some having been in the ground for a considerable time. All, Dr. Lynch would say, had been the result of miscarriages. After a retirement of four hours the jury returned and the foreman said: ‘/We are unable to agree.” “Is there any assistance I can give you on any point in the evidence?” asked his Honour. The foreman: “There is no question of evidence at all. There are two who have made up their minds not to convict.’ ’ His Honour: ‘‘l do not know that you should have told me that. Seeing however you liavo done so it cannot be helped. What is the difficulty? Have these two men made up their minds not to convict, or what?” The foreman: “Just what you say.” His Honour: ‘ 4 l am very sorry gontiemon. It is very unsatisfactory.” Sir Michael Myers added that they might remember he had said at the opening of the trial that he had made up ins mind not to forbid the publication of the proceedings though the Crown prosecution had made application to tuat end. “What I had in mind,” said the Chief Justice, 4 4 was it miqht be a verygood thing that there should have been a report so that the public should have seen the strength of the case.” “It is very unfortunate that because of the action of one or two men here and there tho whole jury is brought into question,” said his Honour. “I will have to discharge jou, gentlemen, as far as this case is concerned. If there is any gentleman who is called upon to serve on a jury and who makes up his mind that no matter what the evidence is ho will not convict he should say so at first because ho should never be on a jury.” Mr H. B. Lusk, Crown Prosecutor, ot Napier, who conducted the prosecution, said he desired formally to ask for a new trial in order to consider the position. His Honour: ” You have heard what I have said. I do not wish to make any comment while there is a question of a new trial. It is extremely unusual that there should be a fourth trial,” Mr Lusk; “I presume I shall have To consult the Solicitor-General.” His Honour: “What do you wish me to do?” Mr Lusk: “I ask you to defer the order until I have consulted The Solicitor-General.’ ’ His Honour agreed to this course and accused was remanded to appear again to-morrow morning.