WOMAN ACQUITTED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22960, 11 February 1938, Page 15

WOMAN ACQUITTED

ALLEGED OPEKATION CHARGE OF ABETTING JURY'S QUICK RETURN A charge of aiding or abotting, counselling or procuring a woman unlawfully to use upon a girl 19 years of age an instrument or other means was preferred against Olive Marie Murfitt. dressmaker, in the Supreme Court yesterday. before Mr. Justice Fair. Accused, a married woman aged 37 years, was defended by Mr. Aekins. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, prosecuted. Mr. Meredith said the allegation was not that tho accused actually did the operation herself, but that she made all the arrangements and procured another woman to do it. The girl concerned said that last August the young man with whom she had been keeping company took her to accused's house at 100 Burnley Terrace. Arrangements were made for another woman to perform an operation at accused's house. Witness was to stay there for three or four days. Tho young man gave accused some money in £1 notes.

Alleged Loan o 1 Wedding Ring Witness said accused told her tho price for the operation was £2O for a single girl and £l2 for a married woman, and lent her her wedding ring so that she should get tho reduced rate. Accused brought another woman who performed an operation on witness, which was only partly successful At accused's suggestion she saw I)r. Kichards. After she left accused's house she became ill at her work, and Dr. Richards ordered her to tho public hospital. In cross-examination witness eaid she complained to accused of the young man's treatment of her. She had not been warned by tho detective that she need not say anything or that she was liable to 10 years' imprisonment. Mr. Aekins: Have you been told by anyone that you will not be prosecuted jfor your share in these transactions? Witness: Yes.

Who by?— Detective Brown. Evidence that examination failed to show any definite signs that the girl had had a miscarriage was given by Dr. H. Morrison, formerly on the staff of tho Auckland Hospital. He said she was discharged from hospital after three days.

Evidence by Doctor Dr. J. F. G. Richards described the circumstances under which he advised the girl to go into hospital. If an instrument had been used on her there would be no evidence of its use.

Tho young man said he visited accused with the girl. Ho said accused described to him what tho. operation would be. He paid accused £'2 and £B. Detectives It. C. Brown and F. N. Aplin gave evidence of interviews with accused and a statement she made but would not sign. She denied tho charge against her In a statement from tho dock accused said she had merely let rooms to these young people. If she had been guilty of this offence she would not have advised the girl to go to a doctor.. "I am innocent of this charge that has been laid against me," she concluded, "and I ask you to clear my name by bringing in a verdict in my favour."

Mr. Aekins emphasised to tho jury the danger of accepting tho evidence of accomplices and said that their evidence in this case was uncorroborated. The woman who was supposed to have performed the operation had never been seen or found. His Honor's Direction

His Honor said that ofTences of this kind were looked upon as most serious. They might think that in giving their evidence the principal witnesses showed no bias against the accused, and no desire to assist in her conviction, but simply endeavoured to state the facts as fairly and as clearly as thev could.

Although they wero accomplices, added his Honor, it was legally competent for the jury to accept their evidence even without corroboration, but it had become a rule not to convict on tho evidence of accomplices alone. The Crown submitted that there was corroborative evidence, but it was for the jury to say whether that was sufficient.

After a retirement of only a quarter of an hour tho jury returned with a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.