AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 306, 22 June 1912, Page 5

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE

JURYMAN VISITS PRISONERS BY NIGHT. SUPPLIED WITH WHISKY. By Telegraph—Prew Association. Blenheim, Friday. When the court resumed this morning, for the continued hearing of the conspiracy charges against Binley and Walsh, matters took a somewhat sensational form. The Crown Prosecutor intimated to his Honor that he had been informed by the sergeant of police that the foreman of the jury, Frank Clarke, had visited the police station last night and interviewed the prisoners. His Honor then entered upon a searching inquiry into the matter, examining several members of the police force and Clarke on oath. It was stated that Clarke, with another, approached accused in the corridor of the police cells, and was ordered off the premises by the sergeant. It was also mentioned that a bottle of whisky was in the possession of the prisoners. Clarke explained that he .strongly held the. opinion that the prisoners should not have been detained in gaol for the night, and after failing in his efforts to obtain their release, went down to see if they were all right. He knew nothing about the whisky and did not consider he was doing anything improper. The Judge treated the matter as of serious import, and with great regret applied, for the first time in the history of the Dominion, section 431 of the Crimes Act, and discharged the jury, and the. case was put off till next sittings. In reference to the supply of whisky, counsel for Walsh said that a man in court was prepared to say that he gavs the whisky to the prisoners. The Judge said he preferred to leave the investigation of that part of the episode to the Crown Prosecutor. - . Blenheim, Last Night. Commenting on the evidence offered this morning in regard to last night's escapade at the police station, his Honor said that it was true, as had just been remarked, that it was a most unfortunate thing to have occurred. He could not help saying that it pressed hardly on the accused in the view that he took of the matter, but he could not help that. The law provided, under Section 431 of the Crimes Act, as follows: "The court may, in case of any emergency or casualty, rendering it in its opinion highly expedient for the ends of justice so to do, in its discretion, discharge the jury without giving a verdict, and direct a new jury to be empannelled during the sittings of the court, or postpone the trial on such terms as justice requires." It was only on very grave and serious conditions indeed that the clause ought to be applied. It was applicable only when the court was practically convinced that a risk of a trial not being a fair and proper one between prisoners and the country existed. When at became expedient for the ends of justice the course provided for should be taken. He had to consider the facts brought under his notice, and there were no really disputed facts. He wished to say in as few remarks as possible that, with respect; to the police, th.ey..had in all respects performed their duty in the matter. There was no occasion for him to say much. A man named Webb had been mentioned in connection with the matter. He did not wish to say anything to prejudice that man. He could only say that the reason why he did not proceed to investigate the matter as against him, with a view of determining whether he should be punished for contempt of court, was that he thought it better that the matter should be investigated by the Crown Prosecutor, with a view of determining whether he committed any legal offence. If it were proved that he did commit a legal offence, it would be the duty of the Crown to proceed against him. That reduced the matter ' he had to consider to the question of the conduct of Clarke, the foreman of the jury, and the question whether his conduct was such as to satisfy him that it was highly expedient for the ends of justice that the trial should not proceed with the present jurv. This Involved only Mr. Clarke. It had nothing to do with the other members of the jury. If this were a civil case, in which tit might be possible to take a threefourths verdict, that matter might pass, | Mu't it was a criminal case, in which there must be a fair 1 and patient investigation, in which the whole of the circumstances must be determined by a unanimous verdict. The foreman of the ; jury had worked himself into a state [ of indignation over nothing, because the young men had to stay in the cells all night. The treatment of the young men was exactly the same as that received by all accused persons, with very few exI ceptions. He might as well state to the public the reasons why this practice was followed. His reason in insisting that lin all cases the accused should be detained was so that t'hev might not be found "hobnobbing" with jurors. Such a thing was very grave, but his judicial experience was sufficiently long for hira to know that such things did occur. Bis experience in this case was sufficient to tell him that such things might occur. It was a reasonable fear that they might come into contact with persona who had no higher sense of duty than Mr. Clarke had shown in this case. He found that from the moment Mr. Clarke walked out of the court to the time that the sergeant found it neeessarv to eject him from the premises of the gaol he showed such bias as, to his Honor's mind, unfitted him to be a juror, and unfitted him to discharge his oath to find a true verdict between the prisoners and the court. That being so, it seemed to him there was but one course open to him. He would be failing in his dutv were he not to applv the provisions of Section 431 to this case. That being so, he, with great regret, had to apply the provisions of this part of the Crimes Act, which, so far as he knew, had never before been applied for in the history of the Dominion since the Act came into force. He proposed to discharge the jury and order a fresh jury to be empannelled. That could only be done at a subsequent sitting, as no other jurors were in attendance.