JURY DISAGREES

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 291, 4 September 1931, Page 11

JURY DISAGREES

Elliott Divorce Action ASHER CASE RECALLED Dominion Special Service. Masterton, September 3. The defended divorce case in which Hannah Longmore Elliott is proceeding against Thomas Russell Elliott for a dissolution of marriage on the grounds, of alleged adultery, occupied the attention of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, yesterday, and to-day. Mr. Justice MacGregor is presiding. ~ , , , The hearing of evidence was concluded yesterday afternoon, Mr. H. C. L. Robinson, counsel for Mrs. Maata Asher, the co-respondent; Mr. J. D. Willis, who is appearing for petitioner, and Mt.. b. Wiren, for respondent, addressed the jury before the adjournment. In addressing the jury this morning, his Honour said that lengthy evidence had been submitted, but, in short, the question involved was whether Elliott had committed adultery with Mrs. Asher. The jury must go on the evidence in the case, but they might, if they so desired, take into consideration the jury's verdict 'n the previous case, Asher v. .Asher. Elliott had been found guilty of this adultery by a jury in Wellington, said bis Honour. He had made no appeal against the verdict. Why had he allowed Asher to thrash him on one occasion? Did he look like a man who would submit to a thrashing by a Maori? Elliott’s explanation for not taking proceedings against Asher was not convincing. Since the previous trial the evidence for the defence had been altered. Tins fact had been attributed to Elliotts previous counsel being unsatisfactory. This had been an unfair and unjustified attack. -All who knew Mr. Marsack would not heed these statements. “You gentlemen may consider that there is another and more simple reason for that change, concluded'his Honour. The jury retired shortly after 11.40 and returned after the lunch adjournment with an announcement that they could not agree upon their verdict. His Honour said that he wanted them to agree if possible in order to avoid the expense to the country of a new trial. He asked them to retire again, and if they could not unanimously agree he would accept a three-qharters verdict. The jury retired ns directed by his Honour, but returned with the announcement that they could not agree upon the verdict. The jury was then discharged.