A JUDGE’S DILEMMA

Grey River Argus, 13 February 1928, Page 5

A JUDGE’S DILEMMA

Prisoners Refuse to Plead JURY FAIL TO AGREE. ‘ ‘ MALICIOUSLY MUTE. ’ ’ LONDON, February 10. A perplexing dilemma occurred at the Dublin Criminal Court, when two youths, Russell ami Price, charged with membership of an illegal military force, refused to plead. The Judge ordered the jury to decide by the customary formula if prisoners are mute of malice or by a visitation of God. The police gave evidence that prisoners were able to speak, but the foreman of the jury announced that there was no chance of an agreement. The Judge asked why, but the foreman kept silent. The. Judge ordered the jury to reconsider the verdict, and the foreman again reported a disagreement. The Judge, replied: “It is a long day, gentlemen; try again.” He then heard the other cases, but the jury persisted in its verdict. The Judge discharged theny saying that the verdict was perverse. Meanwhile, James Donnelly, charged with escaping from prison, similarly refused to plead, and the jury similarly reported that it had failed to agree if he was dumb oi< maliciously mute. Donnelly interrupted: “To save trouble, I plead guilty.” The juryman offered to explain, but the Judge demanded silence, and added: “Prisoner has now spoken. Ho says he is guilty. I direct a plea of guilty be recorded according to the law.”