MURDER CHARGE AT NAPIER

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27190, 6 November 1953, Page 7

MURDER CHARGE AT NAPIER

JUDGE ORDERS NEW TRIAL JUROP.’S ACTION RENDERS HEARING VOID (New Zealand Press Association) . NAPIER, November 5. The jury was discharged and a new trial ordered when the trial of Edna May Wilson, a 46-y ear-old Napier laundress charged with murdering two elderly women, entered its fourth day in the Supreme Court at Napier this moroing. During the two-hour adjournment Mr Justice Hutchison considered an anonymous telephone message to the accused’s counsel alleging that some jurors had gone to a billiards saloon near the hotel where they had been .staying, and that one juror had taken tea round to other persons in the hotel this morning. After conferring with counsel, his Honour discharged the jury, and ordered a new trial.

Wilson is charged with murdering Harriet Sarah Player, aged 81, and Sarah Eliza Armitage, aged 72, on September 8. His Honour, who took his seat at 10.10 ajm. instead of at 10 a.m., as is usual, said:

“The reason for this delay is that it has been conveyed to me that counsel for the accused had*received this morning an anonymous telephone message that two or three members of the jury last evening parted from the other members at the hotel, and went to a billiards saloon across the street, and that another member this morning took tea round to the other guests in the hotel.

“In a case of this sort it is very unfortunate, of course. Everyone should be sure that proper justice is being done, and hence the inquiry into this matter, even though it rises on no better foundation than an anonymous message to counsel. Jurors Questioned “Have you anything to tell me, Mr Foreman?” his Honour asked the foreman of the jury. The foreman: No, your Honour. His Honour: Did any member of the jury go to the billiards saloon across the road away from the others? —Nobody.

“I’m putting this question to all of you,” said his Honour to the jurymen. There was no reply. “I understand all of you to say that none went to the billiards saloon?” said his Honour. “Did any member of the jury take tea round to other guests of the hotel this morning?” A juror: I did, sir. His Honour: How many roems did you go to.

The juror: About, I think, sir, four or five.

Were those rooms occupied by visiting guests?—They were the staff rooms, and there were two guests, 1 think.

And these were outside members of the jury—Yes, sir. His Honour asked whether counsel wished to ask the jury any questions. Counsel’s Views Mr H. D. Dowling, defence counsel: Not for me, sir. I don’t make any point of the matter personally. I fulfilled my duty to_ the Court, and I prefer to leave it at that. Mr A. O. Woodhouse, Crown Prosecutor: Unless your Honour’s mind is clear on the matter, I’ll be glad to have an adjournment to consider the position.

Called to give evidence, Constable Stanley James Svenson, escort for the jurors, saida “That’s the first I’ve heard of it,” when his Honour asked him whether he knew of any trip to a billiards saloon. He said he also did not know which juror went to take tea to others in the hotel. Constable Svenson said he would have known had any juror gone to the billiards saloon.

Constable Robert William Goodson gave similar evidence. His Honour then took an adjournment to consider the matter. When the Court resumed, his Honour said he accepted the jurors’ statement that none had gone to a billiards saloon, but he was concerned about the juror taking tea round in the morning. The Crimes Act provided that lhe jury should be kept together in all cases where the accused might upon conviction be sentenced to death. The juror’s departure from the others seemed an irregularity that rendered the proceedings void. “I have considered whether it would be possible to discharge the one juror and to go on with the 11, but found it impossible,” he added. “It will therefore be necessary for a new jury to be empanelled, and with great regret I direct accordingly.”