
    State v. Edward Tanner.
    November Term, 1920.
    Present: Watson, C. J., Powers, Taylob, Miles, and Slack, JJ.
    Opinion filed November 13, 1920.
    
      Charge as to Expense of Retrial.
    
    There was no error where, on the report of a disagreement by the jury in a criminal case, the trial court called the expense of a retrial and the delay consequent thereon to their attention only as a reason why they should give the evidence further consideration, and the jury manifestly so understood it.
    Information for adultery- Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1920, Franklin County, Moulton, J., presiding. Verdict, guilty. Judgment on the verdict. The. respondent excepted.
    The supplemental charge to the jury on their report of a disagreement ivas as follows: “Well, gentlemen, this ease is an important one, a disagreement is a very regrettable thing, and it means not only an increased expense to the State, but spending a great deal more time in a possible retrial of the case. Now the case has been presented to you with a great deal of detail, everything that there is connected with this case I suppose has been placed before you, and it seems that twelve men ought to be able to agree on it one way or another, if they make another effort to do so. So I think you had better retire again, it is early in the day yet, and give this matter a little further consideration, give it very thorough consideration, and see whether you can’t agree on this matter, as I am sure you can, if you look at it again. Weigh everything there is in the case, remember the instructions that I gave you. I am quite positive, we all are, that you can reach an agreement, and save the unfortunate result of a disagreement of this case. So you will retire again, gentlemen, and give it such consideration as yotb can conscientiously, which it ought to receive, that is, pretty thorough consideration.”
    
      
      Wm. B. McFeeters for the respondent.
    
      A. B. Boiuley, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   Watson, C. J.'

When the jury reported a disagreement there was nothing said by the court of a nature to coerce an agreement, nor as to what their verdict should be. The expense of a retrial, and the delay consequent thereon, were called to their attention only as a reason why they should give the evidence further consideration. Manifestly the jury so understood it, for after retiring for such purpose they returned to the court room and requested that the testimony of two certain witnesses be read by the stenographic reporter; and, on hearing such testimony read, the jury again retired, soon thereafter returning a verdict of guilty. We see nothing in the action of the court, of an improper nature, nor to differentiate the casé from that of State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 Atl. 845.

Judgment that there teas no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exception. Let execution be done.  