JURY'S MISTAKE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 269, 13 November 1935, Page 11

JURY'S MISTAKE.

MAJORITY VERDICT.

INSUFFICIENT TIME TAKEN.

I DISAGREEMENT FOLLOWS. An unusual situation arose in regard to a jury's verdict at the hearing of a claim for damages before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court last evening. The jury returned at 7 p.m. a verdict involving both parties in responsibility, but awarding tlie plaintiff damages. When tlie Toreman announced that one decision had been come to by the majority of the jurors his Honor stated that a majority verdict could not be accepted until three hours had elapsed, and he directed them to give the matter further consideration. After half an hour berore midnight the jury announced that it could not come to a majority decision (nine out of 12). The accident from which the action arose was one in which Mrs. Ethel Maud Wood (Mr. Hampson), aged liO, while crossing Queen Street was knocked down by a motor cyclist, William Reid (Mr. Munro), baker. She claimed that the accident was due to the latter's negligence and sought to recover £500 damages, of which £400 was general damages. Evidence was given for the plaintilf that a weakness in her right hand following the accident would be permanent, while Drs. Axford and T. W. J. Johnson, called by the defence, thought the hand would gradually improve. The defendant in evidence said that when he was about three yards away from the plaintiff she came out from the kerb between two parked cars. He was travelling at 15 miles an hour. An eye-witness of the accident said that plaintiff had walked fast at an angle into defendant's cycle. Certain issues were submitted to tl# jury by his Honor and when they returned at 7 p.m. they found that both parties were guilty of negligence, that the accident was not due solely to the negligence of either nor to the combined negligence of both. They awarded the plaintiff £40 special and £100 general damages. On these findings Mr. Munro. asked for judgment for the defendant, and Mr. Hampson asked for time to consider the matter. His Honor then elicited the information from the foreman that the verdict was a majority one, arrived at in less than three hours. He directed the jury to disperse for dinner and return at 8 p.m. When the jury reassembled his Hono; submitted a fresh issue to them as lows: "Whose negligence was the real, or effective, or substantial cause of the accident?" After a further three hours' consideration tho jury announced that it was unable to agree. Mr. Hampson asked for a new trial. This his Honor granted subject to argument on a motion for nonsuit which Mr. Munro liad raised at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case. Counsel had contended that tTiere was no evidence of any negligcnce by the defendant and stressed that plaintiff had stated that she had looked down the road and found it to be clear.