JURY DISAGREES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23107, 5 February 1937, Page 10

JURY DISAGREES

THIRD TRIAL OF WOMAN FOREMAN’S REVELATION UNSATISFACTORY POSITION CREATED (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Feb. 4. For the third time a jury has failed to reach an agreement in the case of Isobel Annie Aves, also known as Craike, a married woman, of Hastings, who has stood her trial at Napier twice and at Wellington on seven charges of unlawfully using an instrument to procure a miscarriage. The third trial was concluded in the Supreme Court at Wellington today before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), and when the jury, after a retirement of four hours, returned the foreman said. “We are unable to agree.” “ Is there any assistance I can give you on any point in the evidence? ” asked his Honor.

The foreman: There is no question of evidence at all. There are two men who have made up their minds not to convict. His Honor: I do not know that you should have told me that. Seeing, however, that you have done so, it cannot be helped. What is the difficulty? Have these two men made up their minds not to convict or what?

The foreman: Just what you say. His Honor: I am very sorry, gentlemen. It is very unsatisfactory. Hir Honor added that they might remember that he had said at the opening of the trial that he had made up his mind not to forbid publication of the proceedings, though the Crown prosecution had made application to that end. “ What I had in mind,” said the Chief Justice, “was that it might be a very good thing that there should have been a report so that the public should have seen the strength of the case. “It is very unfortunate that, because of the action of one or two men here and there, the whole jury system is brought into question,” said his Honor. “ I will have to discharge you gentlemen, as far as this case is concerned. If there is any gentleman who is called upon to serve on a jury and who makes up his mind that, no matter what the evidence is, he will not convict he should say so at first, because he should never be on a jury.” Mr H. B. Lusk, Crown Prosecutor at Napier, who conducted the prosecution, said he desired formally to ask for a new trial in order to consider the position. His Honor: You have heard what I have said. I do not wish to make any comment while there is a question of a new trial. It is extremely unusual that there should be a fourth trial. Mr Lusk: I presume I shall have to consult the Solicitor-general. His Honor: What do you wish me to do? Mr Lusk: I ask you to defer the order discharging the accused until I have consulted the Solicitorgeneral. His Honor agreed to this course. The accused was remanded to appear again to-morrow morning.