§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that Sir Peter Edlin refused to take a jury's verdict of "Not Guilty" a few days ago; and if he had any legal right to do so?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI am informed by the learned Judge that, in the case to which he understands the question to refer, the defendant was charged with having unlawfully and maliciously wounded his wife. He did not refuse to accept the verdict. On the contrary, he did accept it, and the prisoner was acquitted and discharged; but before accepting it, having reason to think that the jury might have misunderstood the meaning of the 1861 word "maliciously" in the indictment, he directed their attention to the legal meaning of that term. The Judge considered it to be his duty to guard against any possible error on this score; and he did no more than be had a right to do.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWas the statement of the learned Judge made after the verdict was returned?
§ *MR. MATTHEWSI am not informed whether it was after the acquittal or not, but I presume it was after the foreman had delivered the verdict verbally. It is a matter of common practice in this country.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThat is the whole point. Are we to understand that after the verdict was returned, and when the record ought to have been filled up, the learned Judge questioned the verdict of the jury?
§ *MR. MATTHEWSMy information is that the learned Judge simply desired to explain a point, the significance of which the jury were likely to have misunderstood.