SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5161, 6 October 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Friday, October 5.

(Before his Honor Mr. Justice Kichmond),

At 10 o’clock the jury, who had been locked up the previous night, returned into Court and informed his Honor that they had not agreed. In answer to his Honor, the Foreman also stated that there was not the slightest chance of them agreeing. His Honor then discharged the jury for the day. He could not discharge them altogether, even though there was a probability that their services might not further be required. He wished to know if the Crown wished him to exercise his right of ordering a fresh trial? Mr. Bell (for the Crown) said he wished his Honor to exercise his power of ordering the prisoner to be tried the third time, as it was possible fresh evidence might be adduced that would enable the jury to come to a decision one way or the other. In reply to His Honor, Mr. Bell stated that there was one juryman on the second trial who had been on the first.

Mr. Allan (for the prisoner) admitted his Honor’s power to order a fresh trial, but he thought it should not be exercised. No suggestion as to what was further intended had been made on the part of the Crown—nothing had been stated on oath that they had really any new evidence forthcoming. He submitted that the case had been fairly investigated. His Honor stated that as matters stood he could not give the prisoner his discharge. He would like to know if the fresh evidence had reference to the deed of incorporation of the insurance company. Mr. Bell stated that there would be fresh evidence on that and other points as well.

His Honor then said that he could not discharge the prisoner upon the indictment; that could only be done by the Crown, by whom fresh evidence had been promised to be adduced. As far as the case had gone, it seemed that twenty-three persons had been charged -with the prisoner’s trial ; a certain portion of these had been convinced that he was guilty, but that the proof of his guilt was wanting; whilst others had been of opinion that they should reader a verdict of not guilty. Whether that meant that they were of opinion the prisoner was innocent was more than he (his Honor) could say ; in fact, as matters stood, he could not state that any given number of persons were of opinion that he was innocent. As the case presented itself to the Court, it was one of considerable difficulty, aud no one could he more sensible than he was of the difficulty of the position which had consequently been imposed upon him, and especially seeing that there was a great principle at stake in the matter. He must state that he exceedingly regretted being obliged to decide upon the case alone, although he had great consolation in thinking that the decision could be reviewed. Taking everything into consideration, he had come to the conclusion that he should not give the prisoner his discharge at present, and he would therefore order him to be tried a third time, and before the present sitting of the Court. Clearly it would be improper to delay the trial longer, as it would be unfair to keep such a charge hanging over him. He would therefore fix Monday next for the trial, with the understanding that it might be postponed to a further day. In doing so he was anxious that if it were possible the trial should take place befere another Judge, if not before another jury, and in saying so much he was of course actuated by a variety of reasons, which he did not think it then necessary to explain. The prisoner was then ordered to be remanded, to he brought up again on the same charge on Monday next, unless, as his Honor remarked, it was otherwise ordered.