INCONSISTENT VERDICT
CHIEF JUSTICE’S RULING. [per press association.] WELLINGTON, May 20. The legal effect, of the verdict of a jury in finding a man guilty on his own admission,” but recommending him to leniency because “we feel he did not have wilful criminal intent,” was argued before Chief Justice Myers, to-day, counsel submitting the verdict was one of not guilty. Sir M. Myers expressed the opinion that if the man did not have wilful criminal intent, the jury should not have found him guilty, t/e thought the safer course was to interpret the verdict as one of not guilty. He did it with hesitation, but it was not a case, he said, where any good object was to be gained by carrying the matter further. If there were previous cohvictions, or the man was of bad or indifferent character, he might have looked at the matter more closely. The case was that of Jack Norman Eager, stable hand, charged with stealing a watch, chain and pendant, which he admitted finding, and knowing whose they were, he had given the pendant away.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19410520.2.10
Bibliographic details
Greymouth Evening Star, 20 May 1941, Page 2
Word Count
181INCONSISTENT VERDICT Greymouth Evening Star, 20 May 1941, Page 2
Using This Item
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Greymouth Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in