-24-25.
136
the contents of those letters, none of that is matter of sufficient
excuse to change the verdict from that of murder to that of manslaughter.
I have done, gentlemen, and I would ask you to consider your verdict.
--Jury retire--
Foman of Jury: We require further directions from Your Lordship. We want to know whether the Jury must be unanimous on either of the three verdicts that you have placed before us.
Judge: Before you can return a verdict of guilty of murder you have to be unanimous. A verdict of 'manslaughter' or a verdict of 'not guilty' can be found by a majority provided that that majority is not less then five of your number.
Foreman of Jury: We should also like further directions as to the bearing the degree of intoxication has on any verdict brought in, if you would kindly repeat the argument please.
Judge: The degree of intoxication can have no bearing at all on a verdict of 'not guilty', because that verdict must, as I seeit and as I attempted to communicate to you, mean that the accused was not responsible for the death of Michael Pine. But where the issue of intoxication does become important is when on the assumption of your having been satisfied that it was the accused who caused the death of Michael Pine you come to consider whether the crime of which he is guilty is murder or manslaughter. The
law presumes that unlawful killing is murder and it is for the accused to reduce his offence from murder to manslaughter, and that sufficiency of intoxication must be such a degree of intoxication as would to your satisfaction deprive. him entirely of the capacity of forming the intent to kill.
May I repeat gentlemen, that if you find "I am quite sure he took drink, quite sure he took enough to inflame his passions or to disorder his judgment, but not enough to make him quite incapable of forming the intent " that is not enough. You will have
to go much further and say that he had drunk so much that his