FOURTH JURY DISAGREEMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 February 1937, Page 7

FOURTH JURY DISAGREEMENT

WOMAN DISCHARGED CHIEF JUSTICE'S COMMENT [PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, February 16. For the fourth time a jury failed to reach an agreement in the trial of Isabel Annie Aves, also known as Craike, married woman, of Hastings, who has stood trial at Napier and three times at Wellington on seven charges of using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. The fourth trial was concluded in the Supreme Court at Wellington, when it was announced that the Crown did not intend to proceed further. The prisoner was discharged. No evidence was called for the defence. The final addresses to the jury occupied more than two hours. The jury retired at 12.50 p.m., and returned at 4.55 p.m., with the announcement that they could not agree. “Not only was there in this case evidence given by five different women alleging that you procured their miscarriages by the use of instruments, two women alleging that they were twice operated upon,” said the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, to the accused, “but there was evidence which is undisputed and indisputable that during a period of from 18 to 20 months you purchased no fewer than 20 dozen—that is 240—0 f these instruments, which medical evidence says cannot, be imagined in use in the hands of a private person for other than an illegal purpose. There was Iso evidence that during that same period of 18 months you received from no fewer than 183 persons varying sums of an aggregate of £2232/10/-, that proof coming from your own books. Not only that, but there was evidence that ground at the back part of your section was impregnated with human foetal remains, the evidence being that no fewer than 22 foetuses were found. “Well, upon that evidence the Crown submitted that a nefarious and criminal business must have been going on in your house for a period of 18 months or more,’’ he continued. “The jury apparently found some difficulty and have not been able to agree upon the question presumably as to whether you were the actual person who committed these offences. I don’t know whether or not that is the precise question on which the jury differed, but all I can say is that I should recommend you to see that your household in future is not carried on in such a way by anyone as that you may be brought before the Court again on a charge of this kind, because if you are you may not be so fortunate as you are on this occasion.”

After the prisoner had left the dock His Honor said: “I venture to make those observations because there are various aspects of this case which in my view are worthy of the ■serious attention of those who guide the destinies of this young country.”

TALK WITH JURYMAN. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. WANGANUI, February 16. A brief conversation between a member of the jury and a brother of an accused person resulted in a jury at the Supreme Court at Wanganui being discharged to-day, and a fresh trial being begun with a new jury panel. Mr Justice Smith directed that such a course be taken to safeguard the administration of justce. The accused was Paul Nodwell, single, aged 57, charged with wilfully setting fire to a dwelling-house. The case was nearing its end' and accused had given his evidence-in-chief and was about to be cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor when Mr N. R. Bain said he regretted to report that a brother of accused and a member of the jury had been seen in conversation just outside the court room as the jury were dispersing for lunch. His Honor: In that case you had better call evidence. Detective James Murray said that he saw the two conversing and that he told the member of the jury, William Warren, that he deemed it his duty to report the matter to the Crown Prosecutor. Warren, in evidence, said that he and accused’s brother bumped into each other as he was going through the door. All they discussed was the weather. He had known accused’s brother about .two months. John Henry Nodwell, brother of accused, gavq similar evidence denying that the case had been discussed. Mr Bain: Did you know Warren was a member of the jury? Witness: I did not know.

Were you in Court during the two days the case has been on? —I came in just after the start, but from where I was sitting I could not see the jury. “The main difficulty for me to determine is whether accused’s brother knew Warren was a member of the jury,” said His Honor. “It seems extraordinary to me that he should not have known that, I think, though I am not prepared to say beyond any doubt, that accused’s brother knew that Warren was on the jury. In such circumstances it is important that a principle should be upheld, that there mu,st be no conversation between members of the jury and members' of the public during a trial. In those circumstances and because of the fact that it was the accused’s brother who spoke to the juryman, although they say they only discussed the weather, and accused’s brother says he did not know he was talking to a juryman. 1 ought to take the responsibility of discharging the present jury. I think that is the proper course to take in the administration of justice. I find there is no evidence of any actual conversation between these two men. My view is that we cannot be absolutely certain of the object with which accused’s brother spoke to the juryman and in the circumstances the administration of justice would be best served by a new trial.’’ ■ A new trial was begun immediately. BANK CLERK’S TRIAL INVERCARGILL. February 16. After considering the case for more than two hours, the grand jury in the Supreme Court to-day, returned no bih on the charge of murder against

Oswald Cameron Cowie, aged 17, a bank clerk. The charge was later replaced by one of>- manslaughter. / When the Court resumed at 2.30, I the grand jury retired to consider the ’manslaughter charge. It returned at 2.45 p.m. with a true bill on the charge of manslaughter. The foreman asked if it. would be proper for the jury to add a rider. “I think if you have any presentment to make in addition to finding a bill it should be made later,” said his Honor. “The case has to be tried by a common jury, and it is so easy to do something wrong at this stage.” His Honor suggested that if the matter were in writing he should see it. After his Honor had read the grand jury’s note, he- said the observation was a very proper one. It should be handed! in in writing and he could announce it at a later stage. | The trial then proceeded and afterone witness had been heard the hearing was adjourned till to-morrow. TO-DAY’S EVIDENCE INVERCARGILL, February 17. The Supreme Court resumed the hearing of the charge of manslaughter against Oswald Cowie, bank clerk, this morning, when evidence was tendered by Tangi Kitson, farm labourer, and William Thomas McQuarrie, fisherman, both of whom accompanied the deceased, Fletcher, and his companion, Robertson, to the Bank premises. Their testimony was on similar lines to that given in the Lower Court, though in cross-examination by counsel for the accused, it was shown that all four men had indulged in liquor, prior to going to the where they had spent the time in further drinking and listening to music. Both stated that though Wyatt was under the influence of liquor, Cowie was perfectly sober. They detailed the circumstances leading up to the production of the revolver by Wyatt, and its subsequent disappearance, and to the preparations for leaving the premises, when Wyatt pointed out that he was expecting a visit from the manager, and therefore they had better leave. Both witnesses said they did not hear any scuffle or argument prior to the first revolver shot. At the time, both were at the doorway. They ran away a few yards, and finding Fletcher missing, came z back and found him unconscious.

McQuarrie stated that he had the bank revolver and cartridges separately in his pockets, and he took them out and threw them into a shrub in the gardens. Edward Allan Wyatt, bank clerk, in evidence, said that when the door bell rung, fye was merry, but not drunk. He went down and opened the door. McQuarrie stated that he knew Les Nicoll, who used to be in the Bank, and all walked into the basement and then upstairs. Witness said that when he produced the revolver, McQuarrie came and took it. He could not say where it went after that. During the evening, he had asked them several times to leave, but he did not remember them actually leaving. He could not remember anything that happened on the stairs or at the foot. There was no telephone in the residential quarters, and in case of emergency he would have to go downstairs and into the office to use it. Constable Summers said that when accused rushed into the watch house, he .was much excited but perfectly sober, and said that he had shot a man, who with three others were on the Bank premises, and had another revolver. Witness detailed the injuries he had noticed on Wyatt’s face and hand. It looked as if a blow had caused the teeth to cut the lips.