UNUSUAL HAPPENING

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 202, 27 July 1937, Page 6

UNUSUAL HAPPENING

RELATIVE ON JURY, CASE TO BE RETRIED. Unusual developments arose in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North this morning when It was found that a member of the jury pngaged was a son-in-law of oile of the principal witnesses, who is a nephew of plaintiff. The outcome was that the jury was discharged and the case will be tried before an entirely new jury at a later date. . Scheduled to continue at 10 a.m., the whole of yesterday having been occupied in the bearing of evidence, the ease was nearing its conclusion, there being only two further witnesses to be heard for' the. defence. The claim yvas for £2755, being made by Mrs Elizabeth Crowther, of Wellington, as general and special damages for injuries received when she, as a pedestrian, was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle near the Palmerston North Post Office in September of last year. Defendants are Leister George Harris, a service car proprietor, of Dannevirke, Roy Mervyn Blackford, formerly of Dannevirke, now of Hamilton, the driver of the car at the time of the accident, and Mrs Grace Marion Darris, of Dannevirke, the registered owner of the car -involved, and wife of L. G. Harris. His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. Mr 0. C. Mazengarb, of Wellington, with him Mr L. G. H. Sinclair, of Palmerston North, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr lan Macarthur, of Wellington, for defendants.

At 10 a.m. the members of the jury took their seats and after a short time they were informed by the Registrar of the Court that there would be a short adjournment. It was 10.40 a.m. when the Court actually sat. CHIEF JUSTICE EXPLAINS.

‘An unusual position has arisen in this case and it is that which has been the cause of your sitting a little late,” said His Honour. “It has been necessary for counsel to see me and to discuss the position and that, with certain other incidental enquiries, has occupied the time between ten o’clock and now. The difficulty has arisen in this way: Mr Mazengarb, counsel for plaintiff, ascertained this morning—l think he was informed by Mr Crowther—that there is upon tiie jury a close connection —a son-in-law indeed—-of Mr James, who is one of the principal witnesses for plaintiff. Not only that, . but it is also known that Mr James was ill conversation during yesterday with that juror. What that was about, of course, I do not know. It may have had nothing to do with this or then again it may have had. Counsel have not thought it necessary to make enquiries on that point. “It would never do, in the interests of justice, to allow this trial to proceed with, the jury as at present constituted. It would not do in the ciicumstances, seeing that the trial has continued for a whole day and no doubt the jurors have discussed the subject among themselves, to allow the trial to proceed with 11 of -the 12 jurors. Counsel are of the opinion, and I thoroughly agree with them, that the best course in the interests of justice is to discharge this jury and let the case be tried again, as soon as it conveniently can be, with ah entirely new jury.

DUTY OF JUROR. “I regret the position, hut it cannot be helped. It would have been much more satisfactory if the juror in question had intimated when he was called the fact that he was related to the principal witness. Had that been done, of course, he would have been stood on one side. However, the position has arisen and you can see that the only course that can bo adopted, in the interests of justice, is the course that has been agreed on between counsel and myself.”

Mr Mazengarb. rose to make it clear, he said, that on learning of the position he had immediately communicated it to the right quarter. "I have already pointed that out,” said Sir Michael. "You very properly took immediate steps to see that counsel on the other side were acquainted.”

His Honour then intimated to the jury that they would be discharged from further hearing the case. The trial would be adjourned sine die on the understanding that counsel would communicate with him as soon as they could. They might rely, said His Honour, on his bringing the case on with as little undue expense and delay as possible. They would have to consider, however, the requirements of other districts. If the dates His Honour submitted for the new fixture did not suit them, the new trial might have to stand over until the next session at Palmerston North.

The foreman of the jury, Mr W. Harris, rose and pointed out to His Honour that his name happened to be the same as that of two of the defendants, the service car proprietor and the registered owner of the vehicle concerned in the hearing. “But, of course, I am no relation,” he added amid smiles both from His Honour and other jurors and persons in the Court. His Honour said that his observations did not apply to that. The foreman’s observation had, however, been quite proper. His Honour had thought it quite inadvisable to mention any names at all. A name had been mentioned by counsel, but he had taken no notice of it. The foreman said the development had been "a bit of surprise to them.” “I do not think any of us knew,” he remarked. "Yes, it is unfortunate,” agreed His Honour. Inquiries had to be made, but these could not be.made into people’s minds. "It- is the only satisfactory course,” commented the foreman to His Honour, and the Court then rose, being adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow.