CASE COMPLETED

RETRIAL OF MRS. AYES

NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

Counsel's addresses to the jury and the Judge's summing-up in the retrial of Isabel Annie Ayes alias Craike, were completed in the Supreme Court today, and the jury retired to consider its verdict at 12.15 p.m. Mrs. Ayes, a married woman, of Hastings, pleaded not guilty to seven charges of unlawfully using an instrument. : Mr. H. B. Lusk, Crown Prosecutor at Napier, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. C. G. E. Harker appeared for the accused. Mr. Justice Blair presided. , Detective K. W. Mills, of Napier, in evidence^ after "The Post" went to press yesterday, produced a book which he said was found at the accused's house. It showed various sums of money which amounted to £2250 6s for the year 1935. He also found five promissory notes and seven lOUs which the accused said came from people to whom she had lent money. There was also found an index book containing entries of various amounts of money. . Cross-examined by Mr. Harker, the detective did not agree that the records found , were quite consistent, with the accused's explanation that they referred to moneys lent. They appeared to. him to be record* of abortion transactions. Detective F. Hayhurst, of Wellington, and Constable T.: Chalmers, of Napier, also gave evidence. The latter said that when the house of the accused was being searched she remarked to him: "It looks as if they have got me this time," Constable W. Craigie, of Hastings, said that while the accused's house was being searched she said to him, "My God, this 'is tough." After some further conversation she suggested he should look the other way for a minute as she would like to take out "something belonging to the girls." He refused to allow anything to be removed from the room, and later the police found there the lOUs and the index book. ■ Dr. P. P. Lynch, pathologist, of Wellington, said that he •■• visited the premises of the accused with a detective on June 26 and was present when the body of an infant was found buried in the duck-pen, surrounded with lime. He made a post-mortem examination of it and concluded that the child had breathed during the process of birth or after it. There was no sign of injury during birth, of external violence, or.of asphyxia., He formed the opinion that it was four or five weeks premature, but capable of separate existence. It had received no attention after birth, and it had not been where it was found for more than a few days. 'He could form no opinion as to the cause of death, but prematurity itself might be a factor in that. He was ..present alsq when other remains were-found, and identified them as human remains., All were surrounded with lime.. ,None of those remains, with-perhaps two or three exceptions, were tl»se of infants which would be'capable of a separate existence, if born alive. No evidence was called for the defence. V ' COUNSEL'S ADDRESSES. In his address'to the jury Mr. Lusk referred to the idea that a person prac-' tising abortion should not be charged uiiless those -who submitted to the operations were ' also charged. That was an erroneous and improper idea, tie said; and.he pointed out that abortion ,was an extremely serious, crime which could be proved only by the evidence of .those who underwent the operation's. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Harker emphasised the fact that the onus of proof was with the Crown. The evidence of accomplices, he said, had.to be scrutinised with the utmost- care and their motives had to be carefully considered. "There are features in this case," he concluded, "which render it impossible that you should with safety convict the accused on- any one of the counts. "The law says; .'We will not have abortion,'" said his Honour in his summing-up. There were three reasons why the law objected very strongly to it. First, the operation was a danger to the life of the person operated on; secondly, it was bad for the State, one of the greatest troubles of which was the low birth-rate; and thirdly, it encouraged -vice. Such operations were a very grave danger and one had to rely upon the good sense and citizenship of juries to see that the law concerning them was administered without fear or favour.