Cunningham v Ryan [1919] HCA 75

A

y Howley [1990] erat

294 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

CUNNINGHAM AND OTHERS é 5 . APPELLANTS ; DrrenpDAnts, AND RYAN. rs , 5 % 2 A 2 . RESPONDENT. PLaIntirr,

H.C. or A. Practice—Trial by jury—Special questions—Tentative answer—Pinal disagreement

1919. —Verdict—Judgment—Right of jury to give general verdict—Duty of Judge— a Action for libel. Sypyzy, 'Aug. 25, 27. On the trial before the jury of an action for libel special questions were

put to the jury as to defamation, comment, the facts supporting comment,

Isaacs the reasonableness of comment, bona fides, and one question asking what Metnourne, "mages they awarded. 'The jury, having retired to consider their verdict, Oct. 15; 16. after the expiration of six hours (when by the law of New South Wales a verdict by a three-fourths majority may be given) returned into Court, and

Geer during a conversation between the Judge and the foreman it appeared that at and Rioh JJ. that time a majority of three-fourths had agreed to the answer "None"

being given to the last mentioned question. The jury again retired, and finally announced that they were unable to agree upon any verdict, and thereupon they were discharged. On a motion to enter a verdict and judg- ment for the defendant,

Held, by Barton, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ., affirming the judgment of Isaacs J., that there was no final verdict by the jury and, therefore, that the motion should be dismissed.

Held, by Isaacs J., that where on a trial before a jury the Judge puts specific questions to them, although they are entitled to give a general verdict without answering the questions the Judge is not always bound to tell them that they may do so.

Held, also, by Isaacs J., that if a verdict is handed in by a jury they are at liberty, until that verdict is definitely accepted by the Court and recorded, to change their mind.