A REFRACTORY JURY

Taihape Daily Times, 26 January 1918, Page 3

A REFRACTORY JURY

Mr. Montagu Sharpe gave directions for all other jurymen to be discharged after a jury had been sworn at Middlesett Sessions recently. Those dismissed included members of the jury who had been described by Mr. Sharpe ns “not lit to sit on a jury/' oat who had been ordered to remain In attendance until the end of the sessions. That unusual penalty upon a jury caused a sensation in court at the time it was Imposed, Two Wood Green boys had been tried for setting fire to tho Wood Green and Bowes Bark Wesleyan Tennis Clnb pavilion. At the police court they had pleaded guilty but at the trial they urged their innocence, casting the blamejipon another boy, who had joined urn Army. When the foreman of the July asked why the lads had no legal assistance, Mr. Sharpe replied, “They pleaded guiltv at the court Jiclow. But the jury seemed dissatisfied with the conduct of the case, and were absent some time after the trial had closed. When they returned the foreman, speaking as to one of the boys, said the verdict was “Not guilty.” “Not guilty!” exclaimed Mr Sharpe “What an extraordinary verdict.

Please remember you are all upon your

oath.’ ’

When asked their verdict as to the other lad, the foreman replied, “We find he was present but had no felon-

ious intent.”

Thereupon tho Mscene” proceeded as follows:

Mr Sharpe: What do you, mean by

that? It is cither “Guilty” or “Not guilty.” Do you mean guilty or not?” The Foreman: Not guilty. Mr. Sharpe: Of what? “Of the charges against him,” answered. the foreman .emphatically. Mr. Sharpe: It is most extraordinary! They pleaded guilty, ana the evidence of their guilt is the clearest possible. You are noteworthy to sit upon a jury. Go away! You will stay here for the' rest of the sessions. “I don’t think we should be subjected to observations of that kind, sir,” protested the foreman. Mr. Sharpe: Well, I have said so, and I will report you to the Home Office, The evidence was so plain. “Well, lads, you had better go alJout your business,” he added to the boys. “There has been a most shameful mis•axriageof justice, The jury have found you “Not Guilty,” but I will not take upon myself the responsibility of ordering a retrial.” Although application was made later by counssl for the jury’s release, Mr. Sharpe adhered to his decision. On the next day the matter cropped up again.

Mr. Bryan, who had made the application was then told by Air Sharpe that he (the judge) had been in communication with his ' colleagues, Mr. Herbert Nield, in the other court, and he found he could release a certain number of jurymen. Of the twelve in question four must remain, but eight might be replaced. But all the jurymen would have to be in attendance on October 8.

Although an official came to take the names of four members willing to remain, the jury said they would wait or all go. After being discharged on Monday the foreman of the penalised jury said a protest against their treatment had boon presented to the Lord Chancellor and to the Home Secretary, who had promised to inquire into the matter. There has also boon some talk of raising the matter in Parliament.