Page 6 Advertisements Column 3

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1929, Page 6

The jury filed slowly into the Hamilton Supreme Court, after considering for an hour their verdict in a claim for nearly £4OO damages, says the “Waikato Times.” The lawyers hastily donned their wigs and gowns and took their places expectantly at the solicitors’ table; the witnesses and Court habitues swarmed back into the Court and pressed forward against the rail. His Honor took his seat, on the Bench. “What sav you, gentleman?” asked the Registrar, of the jury. “Are you agreed upon your verdict?” “Yes, sir,” answered the foreman solemnly. “Do you find for the plaintiff or the defendant?” “For the defendant,” answered the foreman, firmly. Counsel for the .plaintiff looked 'crestfallen.; counsel for the defendant smiled benignly. His Honour seemed astonished. “For the defendant?” he inquired, looking over his pince-nez. “Yes, for the defendant, your Honour,” repeated the foreman. His Honour commenced to enter judgment accordingly, when his attention was arrested by the frantic gesticulations of a juryman at the other end of the line, who was endeavouring to catch the eye of the foreman. Not being successful in this, the juryman in question took upon himself to reverse the verdict. “For the |ilaintiff.” he called out. “for the plaintiff.” “Yes, for the plaintiff,” chorused the remainder of the jury. “Is it for tbe plaintilf or the defendant?” asked his Honour. “Oil, yes, 'for the plaintiff, 1 mean,” hastily added the foreman, apologetically, to the obvious relief of counsel for tlie plaintiff, who now smiled graciously on the jury. Counsel lor the defendant sighed audibly.