EVIDENCE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICERS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XL, Issue 4, 5 January 1907, Page 2

EVIDENCE OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICERS.

MR CRICK IN THE,WITNESSBOX. . THE"HEARINOAiQJjQURNED. [press association.] ' (Received Jan. 5,..Qj24 a.m.) SYDNEY.,. Jan. 4. The Commission examined the sheriff's officers to-day.. Those in charge of the jury-room .declared that the conduct of the jux.yrrooin was always regular. They .were<?never in the room longer than was necessary for the j>erf ormance of their,; duty, excepting, on one occasion, when; they spent half an hour listening totlie reminiscences of one of the jurymen. They , never discussed - anything. They denied listening at the door, One officer stated that on several .occasions the jury discussed the ease within the hearing of the officials. ( Mr Felton, the sheriff's-, supervising ! officer, gave similar evidence. He was also once or twice with the'defend-1 i ants, but the case was.never mention>ed between them. The; officers did I their duty properly. He emphatically denied the statement that the sheriff '' asked him to ascertain the; opinion of the jury. He mentioned that, with the other officers, he was present in the jury-room by special; invitation of the jury when the foreman- received a birthday presentation from the other jurors.

~ The Gommissiouer: commented that the officers had .no. right, in the room, iney wandered in and out of the iuryroom as if it were part of the Courthouse. He told the witness that that would do for the present. The officer in charge of the defendants deposed that he never discussed the case with the defendants. After the trial he accidentally, met Crick's brother m a • refreshment-room, and fei /"^dinner together, for which Crick s brother paid? Mr Haynes, the editor of the Newsletter, at his own request, gave evidence regarding an, article published in the Newsletter. He said that'" he got the information, for the article from the foreman-of? the jury and his eporters. He farther alleged that he had. been told that: a newsagent was f£?>^ Cn c + d uy ?n ; officer and asked j I\ I 1?, ' V1 M* own request, deposed that the sheriff^, officer! were utter sti-angers.to him-. He said he knew that special precautions were being taken in the case-. He was most cir? f,™PeC*\? nd- scrupulously refrained cerf mer£ tlomilg- ease to the offihim' TT^I^T, 1" mentio»ed it to Th« V, not know a single juror. rJSI s,henffi.feo?Hled, said that he had Atfnrniß^ 131' from the ? eUei' al; to Prevent any possible interference with the jury. These instructions were carried out. Thursdays.. ™S ad 3ouraed