JURY DISAGREES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19769, 17 February 1927, Page 6

JURY DISAGREES

HEDGMAN CASE ENDS i JUDGE ORDERS RE TRIAL. c DRAMATIC PLEA BY COUNSEL. I “This man is a kind of male Alice in Wonderland,” declared ? Mr T. M. Wilford, counsel for the defence in the 1 Hedgman case, in hitting out at J. J. Stuart in his r dramatic summing up yesterday r morning. Five hours later the ’ jury, after a long retirement, announced their inability to agree. A re-trial was applied for by Mr W. ! A. Izard, Crown Prosecutor, and will be heard at the next sessions of tho ■ Supreme Court at Wanganui. Yesterday’s proceedings took an unexpected turn at the outset, when Mr Wilford stated that he would call no j evidence. Mr Izard proceeded to address the jury, and pointed out that they had to i decide whether tho entries were made i at the dates suggested. It was to bo determined whether the' figure “1” in “1921” was written over “5,” or over ' “0.” He contended that in several ' places there had been alterations. Ac- ’ cuscd had said that the entries wore made when the money was advanced, but it was strange that £7B was entered when only £2B was paid over. The angle and appearance of the entries in dispute suggested that they were rll made at the same time. Other pages 1n the book showed that accused’s writ- • ing was not at other times so uniform on different dates. 4 ‘ Alike in Wonderland. ’ ’ Mr Wilford, in a spirited address to , the jury, first paid a tribute to the scrupulous fairness of Mr Izard’s summing up. Unfortunately for Mr Izard the Crown case was only a miserable eggshell. Suggestion was not proof. Before tho action commenced he had been led to believe that Stuart was a verdant green, a child of innocence, a sort of male Alice in Wonderland, the tool and dupe of tho accused. But in the box he had seen an astute witness. Wherever his evidence could be tested, it had failed to carry conviction. Stuart—that innocent abroad—had made statements he could not substannate; wicked and scandalous charges against Mr C. P. Brown, a man of known respectability and integrity. By these things they could judge him. Turning to other evidence, counsel said Detective Walsh’s attitude was singular. Why had he sat through the civil action, Stuart v. Hedgman, unless he was on the trail of his ex-con-stable f It was out of that action that this charge had been framed. In dealing with Hedgman and Stuart they were dealing with uneducated men; but where the entries in Stuart’s books were inconsistent, nothing was said. Did the place where the entries were jotted down show them to be false? If Hedgman had been making deliberately misleading falsifications he would have covered his tracks more shrewdly. The Crown was not worrying about Stuart’s irregularities. Stuart was safe under the Crown umbrella. As to the alleged alteration of the figure “5,” they had the evidence of the registrar, : Mr Morgan, who would not swear that : the figure underneath was not a nought. And if it was a nought, then the Crown case at once fell to pieces. Judge’s Summary. His Honour, Mr Justice McGregor, took the view that the case for the 1 Crown was perfectly clear and simple. ! The points traversed in the case had 1 already been thoroughly covered in the ' civil claim, Stuart v. Hedgman, and ' had led Mr Justice Reed to the definite ’ conclusion that Hedgman’s was a bogus ' defence. There was no reason for them ‘ to over-ride Mr Justice Reed’s decision, ( as no fresh evidence of vital import- 1 ance had been introduced. ( After a retirement ot 4j hours the , foreman of the jury, Mr J. H. Reyn- j olds, announced that an agreement ( could not be reached. The jury was • accordingly discharged, and a re-trial j was ordered. i < INCREASED BAIL i i CROWN PROSECUTOR’S DEMAND. ACCUSED’S COUNSEL MYSTIFIED. An unusual situation developed at the close of the Hedgman trial. A retrial at the next sessions of the Su- ] preme Court was ordered, and Mr T. M. Wilford, counsel for accused, formally applied for bail on the same terms as before. 3 Mr W. A. Izard, Crown Prosecutor, asked that the bail be increased from £250, with a personal surety of £250, : to two outside sureties of £250, plus ( the same personal surety as before. t Mr Wilford: That is very big bail to ( ask. There is no question of the man’s t running away. He has property and in- , terests in the town. His own surety j can be any suit you think fit, but you s already have an outside surety of £250. j Surely that is enough. It is not a cage of murder. ] Mr Izard: There is a certain amount < of doubt as to the value of accused’s j own bail. , j His Honour: The object of the bail i is that he should be here. It is not a ; question of the value of the bail. < No Precedent. . ’ Mr Wilford: lam surprised that, ! after a disagreement, an increase ** should be asked for. I don’t know of 1 any precedent for it. I don’t know ( what is the matter with you, Mr Izard. A general discussion of the arrangements followed, until His Honour ask- 1 ed: f, What is the position?” Mr Izard: I am going to ask for ’ two sureties of £250. Mr Wilford: Does tho Crown Prose cutor not have' to give some reason for this? His Honour: I assume that ho has some reason for it. I am quite in the dark. Mr Wilford: I should not like to assume that there was no reason. Mr Izard: I have a reason. Mr Wilford: I know nothing about the position of the men who are finding tho bail, but I am jure', from the ontoom in which accused is held in this district, that tho money will be found. His Honour directed that bail be allowed on the conditions asked by Mr Izard, .The original outride surety was that of F. W, Searld, and the additional security required yesterday was put np by T. G. Hackshaw,