CRICK-WILLIS TRIAL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8323, 3 January 1907, Page 5

CRICK-WILLIS TRIAL.

INTEGRITY OF SHERIFF'S OFFICERS.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Received January 3, 12.30 a.m. SYDNEY, January 2,

The Royal Commission appointed to inquire whether any persons were guilty of misconduct in connection with the recent Crick-Willis trial commenced taking evidence to-day, the main object being to decide as to the integrity of the sheriff's officers. The sheriff deposed that so far a:-$ he knew no one was guilty of misconduct. The officers were specially selected because they were considered trustworthy. There was; considerable trouble owing to the: illness of several jurymen. The doctors admitted the officers who went more frequently to the juryroom than would otherwise have been the case.

Ten jurymen were examined. Several had no complaints to make,, and saw no misconduct. The privacy, of the jury-room was maintained. Others complained of the conduct of the sheriff's officsrs and other matters. The foreman of. the jury, in his evidence, voiced these complaints,, and stated that early in the trial one juryman stated that no matter what evidence there was he would be in favour of an acquittal. The jury pointed out to him .the seriousness of the position, and they decided to communicate with the sheriff. On the juryman promising he would consider the evidence thsy did not.

However, he afterwards refused to sit and talk with other jurymen. When it came to considering a verdict he had practically to be dragged to the room. They felt that the whole thing from beignning to end was a farce, because of this juryman having given his opinion. Witness considered the privacy of the jury was largely interfered with by the officials who were allowed too much latitude in conversing with the jury. The officer in charge at night spent lengthy periods conversing with the, jury, and asked what they thought of Crick's, address and the judge's summing up, stating that the sheriff always wanted ta know how the juries were getting on and sent him to inquire. Two jurymen informed witness that the same officer had been at them several times, and had also given one of them certain information regarding two witnesses. Other com- ! plaints were that this officer had freedom of communication with both jurymen and defendants; that he "conversed with the jurymen separately both'inside and when out exercising ; that a signal had been exchanged when outside between a juryman -and defendants; that the sheriff's ' officer listened at the door of the jury room. The foreman .also gave evidence that when going' to Darlinghurst for the trial he was approached by a man who told him that he was going to see if he could give Willis a'hand. He wanted' to see if he knew any of the jury. The same man approached others.