THE RECENT TRIAL FOR MURDER IN CHRISTCHURCH.

Southland Times, Issue 1194, 11 January 1870, Page 3

THE RECENT TRIAL FOR MURDER IN CHRISTCHURCH.

"•" (From the Wellington Independent.) The other case to which we referred as occurring at Canterbury is perhaps of a still graver character, as involving circumstances on which may hang the life of a man. This man, whose name was Smyth, was tried on the 3rd December for the murder of his wife, before Puisne Judge Gresson. The trial lasted two days, commencing the second day, Saturday, at 10 a.m., and the jury retiring to consider their verdict at 9.30 p.m. At 25 minutes past 10 the judge sent for the jury, and asked them if they were agreed. The foreman replied, " No, nine have agreed, but three differ." They then again retired. At 11.15 the Judge sent for them again, and finding they were not agreed, he said, " Are you aware that if you don't agree before twelve o'clock I shall have to lock you up tonight and to-morrow, until Monday? * I shall send for you again in a few minutes, so that you will have to make the best use of your time." At 12 minutes to 12 they were sent for for the last time. They were agreed on a verdict of guilty. There is a very strong feeling in Canterbury that the course pursued by the Judge hurried the deliberations of the jury, and the threat that they would be locked up from Saturday till Monday (without, we presume, food, fire, and candle-light), caused them to come to a speedier decision than they might have done, and possibly that had more time been allowed, the verdict of guilty might not have been agreed upon. "It is generally felt," says the editor of the Lyttelton Times, "that Judge Gresson committed a grave fault in that he appeared to press the jury and hasten their verdict." The result is, we understand, that a memorial is being prepared and numerously signed, asking the Government to commute the sentence of death which was passed under the circumstances. "We do not say that the man had not a fair trial ; but if any considerable part of the community of Canterbury think he had riot, the Government can hardly permit the extreme penalty of the law to be inflicted. And thus there may be a failure of justice through a want of discretion — doubtless totally unintentional — on the part of the Judge. But what makes the case the more to be regretted is that there was no occasion for hurry. There was no necessity for shutting up the jury because the Lord's day was approaching. The verdict could have been received on the Sunday. As has been pointed out by a correspondent of the Lyttelton Times, in a similar case which occurred at "Wellington on the trial of the Strakers for murder, Judge Johnston, as midnight approached, and the jury were still at variance, consulted the bar, who furnished him with authorities ; and he sat on and received the verdict at 2.30 on Sunday morning. Points of this sort, which are of common occurrence, ought to be at the finger ends of every lawyer, and much more at those of a judge of the Supreme Court. Ignorance of practice, especially if resulting, as it may in this case, in a failure of justice, cannot increase the public confidence in the Courts of Law as the guardians of life, liberty, and property, and we must regret any event which might even in the least degree have the opposite tendency.