JUDGE AND JURY DIFFER.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 70, 23 March 1915, Page 6

JUDGE AND JURY DIFFER.

(Received. 9.10 a.m.) SYDNEY, this day. In summing up in the Hermann case, the Judge said the evidence was so strong on the forgery charge that he failed to sec how the jury had returned the verdict they did on that oonnt. That Hermann was sane at the time of committing the offences he had no doubt, and the epileptic fits were the result of anxiety over the magnitude of the offences which he had committed. Hermann carried on a business in Sydney for managing investments, and he handled large sums of money. He was charged with forging and uttering bills to the value of over £13.000, the name appearing on the notes being that of a prominent grazier. The defence was one of insanity. It was claimed that the prisoner suffered from severe fits of epilepsy, during which Jie was liable to do all sorts of things of which he had no knowledge when he recovered. Hermann said that when he was under the influence of these fits he was obsessed with an irresistible desire to make huge sus-, of money. The jury found prisoner guilty of uttering the bills, but recommended him to mercj' on the ground that he was a victim of epilepsy.