ACCUSED NOT GUILTY

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23330, 16 May 1941, Page 12

ACCUSED NOT GUILTY

SUBVERSION ( COMPLETE!

- \4' r~r~r*'^ | JURY’S SHORT RET]

After a retirement of jury in the Supreme against Selwyn McDonam^H^^^^H sion of 304 leaflets, People, Defend Your view to facilitating-4he a subversive statement.' discharged by his Northcroft, who presided. was almost completed on. his Honour summing up The case against accused] February 7 he. had in certain documents with' ; facilitating publication of a statement, his Honour ming up. The first. the jury was to satisfy Crown had proved its case. was required to carry the minds of the jury had been proved, and if doubt at all, it was the jury to acquit accused. . ’ The case was simple in aspect, and the only be the inference to be accused’s possession of the There could be little doubt cused was; in possession odd documents, and the nexfj the jury v)as to decide whether were held for purposes of.disb»H|^l The accused invited assume that the of date and of no that was entirely a decision; jury. “I found myself planation was a little low on this point,” said “but I confess that l happy position as the ■ who said he* knew. nothing>''aV.i^^H The jury, who had more of points of political cbntrg^H^l would have to say whether. thp|HH|H mentis were out of date, as IceSj^H said they were, and therefore sojugn junk, his Honour continued. :GBUSSM the possession of 300 odd polled the inference that 'theyj|9|g9 held for distribution. Thei aectfßW said that that might have bea^gM intention at one time, but were now so much waste pabefi^^M After explaining the sigaiflctißMwM the word “subversion,” his.. said that the jury must exagainliMM documents as men of the light of the definition. It might ogipM to some of the jury that flii'f iMiTB ments were-no more than gant argument for the shifting p£|HH incidence of taxation from one secm|H of the public to another, jpM might take the view that commerce and others bodies tdifcUlinfl taxation with similar ' reference possible effects of its incidenpea aMIM ever, the jury' might decide thati|ißH intention of the accused, was,ioiiHM class against class and ■ disrupt'thefjm^l “I do enjoin you to ignore;tbftlnH cumstance that it is stated, back of-the documents that they ■jsiMM issued by the Communist his Honour; “There is the Court to show that the Win ist Party is more unworthy Nationalist Party, the or any other party. YoujhquWJgW proach the case qvfietly and iomMraM apart from any prejudices, or ritation you may feel at the of up; ; his; Honour said he fStmSMKBm mention'’ the statement; cused that he had not to prepare his case. no knowledge .of that, and -BanwMBBM had felt the, slightest enibftflMßHßM he could have applied to hisiMMHfl for an; adjournment, which tainly have been arranged. Agm/msim had only to make the