SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA,

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1760, 26 March 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA,

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) i [from our special reported J Tubsday, March 24. conspiracy. At 8 o'clock the Court was opened for the purpose of receiving the verdict of the jury in the Hayes case. The jury were called over, and the foreman stated that the jury were unable to agree. The Judge said that that being the case, and since they had been locked up all night he might now be permitted to give them their discharge, which wa3 not only in this case but altogether from further attendance during this session of the Court. ; His Honor then asked if there was no attendance on the part of the Crown, ex- , pressing surprise that this should be the case, and that prisoners also should be unrepresented by counsel. After a short pause, : His Honor, addressing the prisoners, said .-.that, the bar was in default on both sides, and they (the prisoners) were thus brought face to face with the Court. This was not proper. Under the circumstances, he must take it upon himself to order, a [ new trial, but the Crown should have been there to intimate whether it desired to continue the prosecution further. He (the Judge) was, however, responsible for the administration of criminal justice, and thpught that a new trial should take place in this case. He would adjourn the Court until 10 o'clock a.m., when a fresh jury should be drawn for their trial. He would be prepared to take bail for the prisoners from time to time until they should be delivered in due course of law. The Court then adjourned. On the Court re - assembling at 10 oVock, and the case having been cilled, \ The Judge said that owing to the nonattendance of any member of the bar in the morning when the Court opened, he found- it necessary that he should state naw that he had ordered a new trial. He had been in some doubt as to whether it would not be his duty to discharge the prisoners, but on reflection, he thought as principal administrator of the criminal law he should order another trial. He wished the Crown Prosecutor to explain his absence in the. morning, and 1 testate whether or not he intended to proceed. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the Crown did so intend. As to his nonattendance in the morning, : he would state that he lived at some distance from the town, and had orJered a conveyance to be there to fetch him in the morning. This, however, did not come, and hence his absence. As to his professional brethren, he felt sure that their absence was not intentional. He begged to apologise for the circumstance, and also to state that he intended to proceed in case the jury failed to agree. His Honor said that the absence of the Crown Prosecutor in the morning might be called want of respect to the Court. It was also a neglect of duty to the public. The excuse offered appeared to him a lame one, and he should have taken care to attend. The same counsel appeared on both sides as in the previous. case. After some argument as to the mode of challenging, and no less than twenty-six challenges, the following jury was empannelled : — A. Stenhouse, Richard Beck, H. C. Galow, .G. Coloff, W. Parsons, James Perkins, J. S. Lang, W. Heinz, T. Bohun, Robert Green, H. J. Hansen, G. H. Turner. ; Mr Button suggested that the evidence in the previous case should be read over to the jury for the purpose of saving the time of the Court, each witness being allowed to add anythiug he might wish to his former evidence, and being subject to cross-examination by both sides.) - The Judge could not consent to this course, which would deprive the jurors of

the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses, which was highly important in a case like the present. Mr Button then opened the case for the Crown, after which the same evidence as was given in the former case was repeated by the several witnesses. In the examination of witnesses on the new trial there were no material facts elicited during Tuesday in addition to to those referred to in the evidence already published. The witnesses examined were Messrs Thompson, Dorris, Heslop, Kenrick, Wilckens, and Mitchell. On the adjournment of the Court at six o'clock, The Judge said that he thought that he would not be doing his duty did he not detain the jury from their homes for the night. The Sheriff would see that proper accommodation was provided for them. Looking to the number of challenges of jurors summoned, and to other circumstances, there was reason to suppeso that there was some strong under-current which might interfere with the administration of justice if they were dismissed for the night. There was undoubtedly great public interest in the trial, and there would be much temptation to jurymen to talk if they were at liberty. It was true that the jury which had already tried the case had notjbeen detained, but, looking at the result of that trial he thought it necessary to do so in this instance. He would further caution the jurymen not to attempt too much to form an opinion on the case at its present stage, as all the evidence was not before them. This was a particularly . difficult case, and they should keep their minds open : in order properly to' discharge their important functions, as many men felt a sort of pride in not going back from an opinion which they had once expressed. The Court then adjourned until 10 o'clock on Wednesday, the prisoners being: admitted to bail.