ONE MAN IN TWELVE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21882, 18 August 1934, Page 14

ONE MAN IN TWELVE

NO VERDICT IN A TRIAL JUROR'S "BLIND OBSTINACY" SEVERE COMMENT BY JUDGE Kleven men agreed on a verdict in a case that was tried in Melbourne recently, but the remaining juror said that he would not send a man to prison except for murder. The result was that after having been locked up for eight hours the jury was discharged and a new trial was ordered.

Ralph Hamilton Lane, aged 45 years, salesman, and Walter James Moran, aged 50 years, company director, were charged with having conspired to defraud members of the public, who had invested £IO,OOO in the Dominion Tobacco Corporation of Australia Proprietary, Limited. "It is a lamentable thing," said Air. Justice Lowe, discharging tjfe jury, "that the trial should be rendered abortive by the blind, unreasonable obstinacy of one man, who should never have taken his place on the jury." The Judge said that he would have liked to refuse to pay the man juror's fees, but, unfortunately, he did not have power to do so. The juror admitted that he had not considered the evidence in the case and that he had not formed any opinion of the evidence that he had heard. The jurv retired shortly after 10 a.in to consider its verdict.

Eleven Jurors in Accord At 11.40 a.m. the jury returned to Court. When the foreman was asked if the jury had agreed upon a verdict, he replied: " Your Honor, the jury in this case cannot agree. We cannot come to the point. I might say that 11 men have made up their minds on the verdict, but the other man —"

Mr. - Justice Lowe: I do not want you to tell me that. The law is that you must be locked up for six lioiirs, so I will have to ask you to retire and make up your minds during that time. At 12.30 p.m. Mr. Justice Lowe summoned the jury, and asked whether he could be of assistance. He said that no obstinate resistance to the views of the majority could be justified. Witnesses had been brought from many parts of the State and the trial had been expensive. It was desirable in the interest of the public that the time and money of the country should not be wasted. His Honor then sent the jury back until 4 p.m. When Mr. Justice Lowe again entered the Court, the foreman passed him a slip of paper, which His Honor read, ft said:—"l desire to ask whether it is possible for you to receive a verdict with one man dissenting. This man is against sending anyone to prison unless for' murder." Mr. Justice Lowe said that he could not accept a majority verdict, and added: —"1 want to say that if there is such a man that man is not doing his duty. He is not observing the oath ho took before entering the jury box. Such a man had no business to go on a jury, and he should have asked to be excused." The jury then retired again. No Chance of Agreement

At 4.40 p.m. the jury returned to Court and another note was handed lip to the Judge. This note, which was signed by the juryman in question, read:—"l cannot see my way clear to alter my feeling in this case. 1 still adhere to my statement in the first note."

The Foreman: Not only have I tried to get him to alter his opinion, but all the other jurymen have tried also. Mr. Justice Lowe again reminded tho juror, who stood forward, of the oath which ho had taken, and sent the jury out again. At 6 p.m., when the jury was sent for, the foreman said that there was not the slightest chance of agreement. Mr. Justice Lowe said that in the circumstances he did not think there would be any use in detaining the jury longer. Lane and Moran were remanded for further trial. Bail was x-enewed.