THE HAYNE CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16732, 13 May 1922, Page 19

THE HAYNE CASE.

JURY AGAIN DISAGREES. Tn tli© second re-trial of James Reynold Hayne. a Dunedin chemist, on charges of manslaughter and of performing an illegal operation, which was hoard £.l the Supreme Court yesterday bej'orw s<>vnor "Mr Justice Chapman, the jury failed to agree. The against Havne were pr> viously heard before Mr Justice Adams on February 17 and February 27. At both trials the juries failed to agree. The charges are as follows: (1) On November 5, 1921, at Timaru, did unlawfully kill one Violet Ada Atkins, thereby committing the crime of manslaughter. (2) On or about October 7, 1921,at Dunedin, did unlawully use an instrument or other means upon one Violet Ada Atkins with intent to procure her miscarriage. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown; Air A. C. Hanlon, of Dunedin, with him Mr O. S. Thomas, appeared for the accused. Mr Hanloon, in his address to the jury, said that the evidence y as so weak that counsel for the Crown had had to make a most powerful indictment against the accused. The Crown’s case should not need such special pleading; the evidence should he Sufficiently clear and cogent to stand without that kind of thing. He was not there to explain why Mrs Atkins invented her story; he did not know why she invented it; but he would say that no man could understand the workings of the female human mind r Mrs Atkins had had a miscarriage, but there was no corroboration whatever of th© allegation that an operation had been performed on her by anybody. There was no reason to doubt Mrs Atkins’s indication in her letter-card of October 10 that on that date she was not in Dunedin, and could not hare been in th© accused’s premises when, it was alleged, the operation was performed. Miss "Wilson was not the only person who spelt “ Dunedin '* incorrectly. His Honor, summing up, said that the jury must consider whether there was any reason to fear that Airs Atkins, in her deposition, for the purpose, possibly, of clearing somebodv deliberately and wilfully manufactured a case against the accused, who, as far as could bo seen, virtually was a stranger to her. Tf her deposition was torn up the Crown had no ca«e whatever. The endeavour of counsel for the Crown was to show t hat her evidence was true, that she had no motive to give false evidence, and no motive to trump up a hideous charge against a stranger when she was dying in the hospital. The jury must decide whether or not she was duly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion when she made the deposition. The real question was whether or not thev could accept her evidence. Tf they had any reasonable doubt about it. if thev mistrusted her evidence, they must give the accused the benefit : but if they found that she told the truth, they must say so, no matter bow painful their duty might be. The jury retired at 4.1 S p m. JUFT FAILS TO AGREE. Tbo jury returned at 8.40 p.m. His Honor said to th© foreman that he understood that th© jury had not arrived at a unanimous conclusion. The foreman : That is so, your Honor. His Honor: Is there any matter in which you could derive any assistance from me—any evidence I could read, or anything you would like further explained? The foreman, after consulting with ! the jury, said, that there was nothing. His Honor: I’m afraid 1 cannot dis- | charge you. and I must ask you to con- ■ tinue your deliberation©. The only thing 1 can suggest is that you should re-discuss th© whole thing and see if you can overcome th© difficulties. 1 don’t know on what you are divided ; I don't want to know; it’s not my \ rovince to ask. But it is my duty to ask you to retire again and re-open the discussion and see if you can arrive at a conclusion. It is not a case in which I can discharge you because a certain time has elapsed. I ask you to retire again. The jury retired at 8.44 p.m.. and returned again at 10 p.m. The foreman handed a document to , his Honor. H is Honor (after reading the document to himself): I understand that j you are unable to agree. The foreman : That is so, your Honor. His Honor: In those circumstances I T discharge you. gentlemen ; you will I not be asked, to attend further this sitting. QUESTION OF NEW TRIAD. Air Donnelly said that three juries having disagreed, it was his duty to report the circumstances to the law officers. He applied for liberty to apply for another trial if that course was considered necessary. His Honor said that the best course •was to leave it to the Minister of Justice, in conjunction with the SolicitorGeneral, to decide whether a further trial should b© held. He expressed

no opinion on the subject, but he woulc report his views to the Alin is ter. H< would not detain the accused any further and he did nob think it necessary in the circumstances to ask that he should give bail : he would be satisfied with accused’s own recognisances that > he would appear at th© next sitting oi j the Court. Air Ifanlon : If your Honor pleases. His Honor: The matter will stand over till th© Minister or the Solicitor- ! General determines whether a new trial ; shall be held. Accused was released on his own recognisances of £SOO to appear on | August 15.