Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WANGANUI CASE

JURY DISCHARGED. DETECTIVE’S EVIDENCE Juryman And Accused’s Brother In Conversation Press Association—Copyright. Wanganui, Last Night. A brief conversation between a member of the jury and the brother of an accused person resulted in a jury at the Supreme Court, Wanganui, being discharged to-day and a fresh trial begun with a new jury panel. Mr Justice Smith, who presided, directed that such a course should be taken to safeguard the administration of justice. The accused Vilas Paul Nodwell, a single man, aged 57 years, who was charged with wilfully setting fire to his dwelling house. The case was nearing its end and the accused had given evidence in chief and was about to be cross-ex-amined by the Crown Prosecutor, Mr N. R. Bain, v'ho said he regretted to report that the brother of the accused and a member of the jury were seen in conversation just outside the court room as the jury was dispersing for lunch. His Honour: “In that case you had better call evidence.” Detective James Murry gave evidence that he saw the two conversing, and that he told the member of The jury, William Warren, that he deemed it his duty to report the matter to the Crown Prosecutor. Warren in evidence said that he and the accused’s brother bumped into each other as they were goihft out of the door. All they discussed was the weather. He had knov.’n the accused’s brother for some two Souths. “The main difficulty for me is to determine whether the accused’s, brother knew Warren was on the jury,” said the Judge in giving his decision. “In such circumstances it is important that a principle should be upheld —that there must be no conversation between members of a jury and members of the public during a trial. In those circumstances and in regard to the fact that it was accused’s brother who spoke to the juryman, although they s.ay they only discussed the Weather and the accused’s brother says he did not know he was talking to a juryman, I ought to take the responsibility of discharging the present jury. I think that is.’ the proper course to take fn the administration of justice.”

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TCP19370217.2.61

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 362, 17 February 1937, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
365

WANGANUI CASE Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 362, 17 February 1937, Page 6

WANGANUI CASE Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 362, 17 February 1937, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert