JURIES' VERDICTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume IX, Issue 607, 11 October 1876, Page 3

JURIES' VERDICTS.

During the trial of the cases of Regina v. Walters and Burke in the Supreme Court last week, very pointed reference was made by the Crown Prosecutor and the Judge to the inattention of jurors and the inconsistency of the verdicts with the evidence in many of the cases set down for trial at this sessions. The Crown Prosecutor (to the jury) : lam enden." voring to make yon understand the case, and the least you could do is to pay some attention to it. If you wish to live in a society of criminals it ia nothing to me, and I will sit down and not proceed further if you do not wish to hear me. Dutiag the whole of this session the inattention displayed on the part of jurors to the fact of crime being rampant in our midst is a subject, your Honor, that calls for some remark. Under ordinary circumstances, I do not care much whether the jury attends to me or not. holt c. Cook (counsel for the prisoners) Objected to 'hese remarks of the Cro-wn Prosecutor, 19 boin£ very prejudicial to his clients. His Honor : I differ from yon, Mr Cook. If the jury ate inattentive the Crown Prosecutor is quite right in drawing at eution to the fact. The Crown Prosecutor : Gentlemen of the jury, you are part of the machinery for preserving society in a proper condition. If you consider this, then, you will pay more attention to the case than you seem inclined to pay to the duties you are .performing in that box. Do not think that it matters the least bit to the learned judge or m\ self, who are conducting the case as a matter of duty, and who have no interest in the result and no feelings in it, whether you attend to your duties or not, except as members of the coinpin dty. Speaking for myself, at any rate, I say this, that the result of this prosecution is a matter which has no bearing- upon me except as a member of the community. If the jurors will disregard evidence time after time, and the duties before them, and give verdicts diametrically opposed to that evi.lence, and without a single doubt being cast upon the credibility of the witneasesi adduced before them, and if you do not, as in this case, pay the slightest regard to the efforts of the Crown Prosecutor and to the points of the case, I must say that changes wilt be required in the manner in which criminal prosecutions are to be conducted in C jurts of Justice. His Honor: The Crown Prosecutor his made some remarks dm in? the course of his address, and which I did vot then interrupt, not knowing' how far he wns going. He called attention to the fact that you were not attentive. You know better thnn I whether yon were so or not. If you were inattentive, he was right in directing the attention of the Court, to it. lint tho learned counsel did more than that, and -I am sure that he will, upon reflection, agree with tho remarks which I am about to make upon the general character of the verdicts which have been given by juries. I presume that he referred to the present ses don. I think that it w.as undesirable that these remarks should have been made at the time they were made. At tbe same time, I must say that there have been two or three occasions during this Bittin. 8, on which the verdicts found by the juries were, to say the least of it, such as I did nor. ajrree witu. I said nothing at tha time, because Hie object of a trial bjjury is that the jury should give its decision upon the case. Ido not believe iv Judges making remarks npou the decisions of jmirs. There were three rerdicts given which I would not have given. Different people, however, take different views ef fncts, and it is quite possible that you and the other jurors may have been misled by the maxim which we are all willing to apply, but which may be stretched too far— nauieiy. that prisoxers are to have the benefit of the doubt. That must be interpreted as I have int rpreted it to you. The doubt must be a reasonable one.