TAMPERING WITH JURORS— EMBRACERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5758, 1 May 1880, Page 5

TAMPERING WITH JURORS— EMBRACERY.

Samuel Coombes, a clothier and draper in Queen-street, was yesterday brought before the Residmt Magistrate sitting in the Police Conrt, upon the following information The information and complaint of George Jeffery — Who saith (on oath) that he lias just cause to suspect that the said Samuel Coombes, well knowing that a certain jury had been summoned and returned to try certain bills of- indictment at Auckland (aforesaid), and amongst others a bill of indictment against Stephen Edward Hughes for misdemeanour; that the said Samuel Coombes, being a common embracer of jurors, devising, .' and wickedly and unlawfully intending to hinder the due and lawful trial of the said Stephen Edward Hughea by the jurors (aforesaid); that he did unlawfully, wickedly, and unjustly solicit and persuade one John Mason ; that he did say and utter to the said John Mason divers words and discourses by way of commendation on behalf of the said Stephen Edward Hughes ; and then and there did unlawfully and corruptly move and desire tie said John Mason to solicit and persuade , the other jurors summoned and returned'to' try the said indictment to give a verdict in favor of the said Stephon Edward Hughes. ,■ _ Mr. Brookficld appeared for the "prosecution on behalf of the Crown.

Mr. E. Hesketh and Mr. Tylor defended the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor in opening t"he case said thi3 was a rather uncommon prosecution, and the offence charged was somewhat peculiar. The offence is known to the' law as " embracery," and is not frequently prosecuted because not frequently found,.out. This was the first case of'the' kind' in the Colony so far as he knew, and -certainly so in. Auckland.* He could not do better than explain the offenoe as laid down in ,Mr. Russell's "On Crimes," the definltion there 'being simply j\n extract from Hawkin's "Pleas' of the Crown." It is another species of 11 maintenance" and consists in such practices as would interfere with the'ordinary course of justice, 33 would obstruct the administration of' the law, or hinder, or incline jurors by means of promises, letters, threats, persuasions, solicitations, except'only the strength of" the evidence or the arguments of counsel without respect to whether the verdict should be true or falsej and the parson guilty of sncli offence was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour, and punished in the same way as for unlawful maintenance by 'fine or imprisonment. 1 The Statute 'VI., Geo. IV., cap. 50, sec. 62, ordained that every person who should be guilty of the offence or "embracery," and every juror who Should ba _ guilty of corruptly yielding to SHch solicitations, Ac., may be proceeded against by indictment or information. The Court could not therefore deal with the present case in a BummaTy way if the offence were proved. ■ The clause in the' English "Statute was also to be found in the Jurora Act, 1868 (New Zealand), section 60. The decision upon cases of the kind would be found in " Bishop's Criminal Law." There had been a great deal of talk about the present case. The learned counsel detailed the " words and discourses " which h6 was in a position to prove, and which will be found in the following evidence:—

Mr. Hudson Williamson, Depuiy-Regia-trar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, produced the petty jury panel. The jarora were • drawn on the 19th March, and the summons issued a few days afterwards. Witness received the panel oh the first day of the Crown sittings. On the panel there was the name of "John Mason, St. Mary's •Road," hairdresser. That juryman attended the Court. A true bill was found by the Grand Jury against Stephen Edward Hnghe3 npon a charge of indecent' assault. Hughes was arraigned on that indictment, tried,' and a verdict of " Not guilty." returned. > Gross-examined: There were several challenges of the jury—one on behalf of the Crown and nine or ten, I forget which, on the part of the'prisoner. John Mason deposed: lam a hair-dresser, carrying on business in Qaeen ; streeti, and residing at St. Mary's Road, Ponsonby. I was summoned as a juror to appear at the sittings of the Circuit Court, holderi oil the sth of April. I remember seeing Coombea in my shop in Queen-street on' the 2nd of April." My brother Thomas Mason ' was present. I had just come in from the bank. The defendant said, addressing me as I came in, "I say to yon what I have been saying to your brother; which of you two coves are on the jury next week I" My brother said. " That is the victim," meaning me. Coombesthen said,".You will be on Hughes's jury," or "on the jury in Hughes's I forget which. I said, "How can. you tell that?" He said, "It's been all arranged—l have come to see yon about it." I said I was sorry to think 'that any man in Auckland should ask me a question like that. He said, "They' had been talking abont it, and they did not think they would do much good with me, but that* after some persuasion, he had consented to try: he had come to see how far I was favourable." 1 then said, " Bad the party that sent yon come himself, he woold have wanted a hat a size larger." ■ • Mr. Hesketh : What does . that' mean— that yon would give him a wigging? His Worship : Or that you would not cut his hair for him ? Witness : That I would have punched his heud. He then said he would like to lock the party that sent him and-myself in a room together, and concluded by saying that it would be advisable to challenge me, as I was not favourable. The defendant next - produced a list and named the persons he had to see—Graves Aickin (chemist), McGregor (the publican), Martin (furniture dealer, Victoria-street), Frater, and Lambert. > He said, " That's my little dose."- -1 asked him the name of the party that sent him. After a little hesitation he said " George." At the opening of the conversation the defendant said, *•! have a list of the parties that I've got to see." I attended the circuit sittings as a juror. I remember Hughes's case, being called for trial. I was the second juror called. 1 was challenged, as I understood, by the defendant. I had a conversation with another juror. Mr. Brookfield : In prisoner's presence." Witness: No, but I . Mr. Tyler : Yon are very anxious. ' There is some bias. • .Mr. Brookfield : That remark - is, to say - the least, uncalled for. ■ \ /! . - ■ Witness : I saw the defendant some daysafter the trial, and bad a conversation _witb him. He said, "So yoa were chaUengecL i did not thin b you would be." Headdea.VVi reference to the conversation I had. wi y the other day, it did not on £"S «y OB did party I then named." Jre.not- tell me that last time. .. 3 t first" plied that it did afterwards with fhe party th e old man •' they went into £>® " It originated made it no secret. .HO ®aiu, . : Have yoa any more informa- ' here the " j^SSh: As Mr. Mason histoid us all we have nothing further to askTnm. _ Thomas .Mason, brother of.,the last witness, corroborated ,' the above testimony as to conversation 1 in the shop.When Uoombes came in he said "which at you two fellows is on the jury. next, week • I said it wa3 my brother whtf-was-onHugnes's case,, and Ihoped He would be - challenged,', as ' Hnghea was; a'Ponsonby'man.

Told Coombes.that there :was .nothing to be feared if Hughes.hada good case. Said "If ■ there was made out a bad case he would for him—there was nO mistake about that. 'J Witness's brother then came in. Coombes Said to witness's, .brother, .".I come to see • how far yon are favourable or.unfavourable to Hughes." John Mason said he did not feel complimented at all in being waited on for such a purpose, aDd tnat the party, if he came himself, would require a larger sized bat.' Coi»mbes said he had been asked "to come," and. that "he bad promised to try what he could do." To the inquiry who sent him, the defendant said "George." After some comments in the paper, defendant came again to the shop. [The wit. ness repeated the evidence given by' his brother as to the second conversation.] The defendant said, "It was not that party (George) who originated it, it was myself who did so." Coombes said, " I mentioned it first; the old man fell in with it, and made no secret about it." This concluded the evidence.'

Mr. Hesketh asked the Court whether, in its opinion, there was any case which the defendant should be called on to answer. The only evidence adduced related to an interview. There were no letters, promises, menaces, or even persuasion—which waß the widest term used —proved. His Worship: It is laid down by Mr. Russell (on Crimes) that any attempt whatever to corrupt, influence, or incline the minds of the jury, is an offence. Mr. Hesketh : For anything that appeared in the evidence the defendant might have gone to inquire simply whether the juror (Mr. Mason) wa3 favouiable 'to Hughes or unfavourable. The law gave the right of challenge to a man put on his trial. The grounds of the challenge wa3 that the juror challenged was unfavourable. The fact itself was one to be ascertained by inquiry. The defendant might have been told to go to Mason and ask the question. There was no evidence that the defendant did anything more. There was no crime iu finding out whether a mau was friendly or the reverse; It must be shown that there.was tome letter, promise," menace; or persuasion npou which it waS sought to exercise an'influence over the juror. There is nothing of the kind here. What happened in this in-I.nice might be au entirely innocent, without a shadow of any intent. • It. was not shown that the defendant went to Mason's shop for such an.object as he is charged with. The Crown Prosecutor : It appears to me that the evidence does disclose a prima facie case against the defendant. He goes there to ascertain whether the juror will be favourably inclined, and if not he threatens to challenge him. The juror was challenged. After the trial, Coombes said that it was he himself who originated the whole proceeding. The defendant also said, he was going to see other parties, no doubt with the same object. And it is an element in the case, that Coombes is a perfect stranger, not having the interest of relative or kinsman. Why should he have interfered 1 He had not the smallest shadow of right to interfere in any way. Bnt he went to Mason's to see whether he was favourable, or if he was not to persuade him to become so.

Mr. Hesketh : There is nothing to show that the defendant went there with any such object. ' His Worship : It seems to me that he got ao far that he could go no further, and then he desisted. I should like to look into the ' reported cases before givilig my decision. The Crown Prosecutor: .1 think you will not be able to find one. There is no English case reported that I know of. There has been a case in Melbourne, but I do not think there is any report of that. Mr. Tyler : The offence has bden defined aa an attempt to influence jurors on a particular side by promises, .menaces, persua-. sion, entreaties, moneys, entertainments, and the like. There is nothing of that kind in this case. In this case there could not even be persuasion, because the juror put himself into such a position as to defy all persnasion. His Worship : According to the authorities, all fraudulent attempts to influence jurors are offences of the highest kind under this "head. I must say that I think there is sufficient in the evidence to show, a prima Jacle case. I must commit the defendant for trial at tlie next sessions of the Supreme Court. The defendant was warned in the usual way, to which he replied: I will reserve my defence. . Ax other Case. The defendant was called to answer a second charge of the sama kind, in support of which the following evidence was adduced :— ■ Mr. Hudson produced the jury panel, the indictment, and answered the ordinary formal questions. Patrick Martin was one of the jurors. John Mason, hairdresser, deposed to the interview in his shop as before. There was the name"Patrick Martin" on the list produced by Cnombes. He said they were the. names of jurors summoned to appear at the next Bitting of the Supreme Court, and whom he had to see. j

Patrick Martin, furniture dealer, Victoriastreet, deposed : I was summoned to .serve on the jury at the last Circuit Court) The defendant, came to me on Saturday, .the ;3rd of ApriL The .first question he asked i me, was whether I was not summoned for 'the jury on Monday. I was acquainted with Coombes. I said "Yes." He a3ked me'if I was on Hnghes's jury whether I : would take a light ~view. He said he did not care so muoh about Hughes himself as for his wife and children. I was horrified, raised .my hand to his mouth, and begged, for God's sake, that he would not say anything more to :nie about that, because I could not listen to him.- Coombes was commencing to say something else, but I stopped him, and asked him whether he was aware of the consequences, or whether men held their oaths so lightly that they should be tampered with like that. I asked him who it was that sent him to make a tool of me with such a message. Surely .to patience they ought to know better. Coombes had mentioned the name of Hughes, but whether it was young Mr. Hughes or old Mr. Hughes Ido not recollect. I told him they ought to have known better; that if they were ignorant persons I could not tolerate it. I said that if I should be unfortunately called to sit on the case, and I should object, the Crown Prosecutor or the Jndge : might ask me the reasOD. If I explained that reason, both the defendant and the parties would be called before the Court; they would leave the Conrt more disgraced than young Hughes in the eyes of the. law, and in the eyes of the public, whatever the verdict might be. The defendant seemed to treat the matter lightly.l do not believe he knew the predicament in which he placed himself. I said, I w.onld be very : willing' to .do him a personal favour, but when a man had to go upon his oath, he.Bhonld keep to it. I did sit on Hnghes's jury.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hesketh : I have told. you all. that passed, as near as I can recollect. I did not allow what he said to influence me. He might have talked to me for a month, and it would not have that effect. I would have objected to sitting on the jury, but I thought it would prejudice the case. The verdict in which I concurred was returned by me, uninfluenced by anything which Coombes said to me. I was the only one that objected. His Worship: You were the only one that objected. Witness : I do not think it is right to disclose the secrets of the jury-room, but in the way that the law was put, I had to give way. His Worship : A grand juror is sworn to keep the Queen's counsel, and that of his fellow jurors. Does that apply to the petty jury. Mr. Brookfield: No ; their oath is only. that they shall well and truly try." The witness repeated that he had to give way before the exposition .of-.the law made fay the Court and Mr. Tyler. Mr. Tyler : Would your Worship inform US if yon should make up your mind to commit in this case, what amount of bail yon would require 1 • His Worship : I.think I could not take Jess than the defendant himself in £200, and . two sureties in £100 each, in each case.; 'The defendant was warned in the usual way, and he replied that be had nothing to say.' ' The defendant was , formally-committed to take his triaLat the next sessions of the Circuit Court. : Bail was at once found. ; The case of Alexander Mason Williams. • Mr. Brookfield.: Ido not think the jevidence in this case would be sufficient to • secure the conviction of; the , I beg therefore to withdraw, the charge against hinu . _ !'i-' His-Worship : Then the defendant iajdischargsd, I'cannot'help remarking that the; 'honeaty and integrity displayed :by Mefesra. Mason and.MaxJan in this transaction are - JjS°*y ® r to them. It'is a pleasure tp think that there aro men in the community. ; ; who will not allow themselves to be.used for, the purpose of corrupting the course of justice. Xhia concluded the " embracer; " cases,