THE PONSONBY VITRIOL THROWING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 210, 5 September 1899, Page 5

THE PONSONBY VITRIOL THROWING CASE.

MRS RIDLING ON HER TRIAL.

FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.

Catherine Ridling was indicted that on June 3, 1899, at Ponsohby, with intent to disfigure or do grievous harm,-she1 did actual bodily harm to Ellen Hamia, so as to cause her actual bodily harm. Prisoner, pleaded' guilty to the assault, but denied the intent. This was taken as a plea of not guilty. Mr W. J. Napier appealed on behalf of accused. Prisoner appeared to feel her position very keenly, and when: the jury were being empanelled she fainted. She was attended by a matron from th*e gaol. The Hon. J. A* Tok prosecuted for the Crown. Ellen Hanna, wife of John Hanna, living in Paget-st., 7Pbnsonby, deposed that prisoner was her sister. She remembered Saturday evening, 3rd of June last, when she was at home between eight and nine o'clock. The prisoner lived at Queeii-st., Richmond, some distance away. Between eight and nine o'clock on. the 3rd June she had sent her Uttle girl Nellie a message. She same back immediately crying. In consequence she went out into her own yard further down than thw g-ate. As'soon as witness looked over the fence she sttw a fluid coming, and by it was struck on the face. It came from the other side of the fence. She saw the figure of a woman, and the fluid came from a woman. The effect of the fluid was a burning sensation. Her arm and hand were also burnt. Both sides of her face were burnt. The mark around the eye was the effect of the fluid. Some of her clothes were burnt. She was wearing an apron that night (produced). , [The apron' was burnt and covered with vitriol.] The blouse, which witness was wearing (burnt about the collar and marks on the inside lining) was produced. Witness said the marks were produced by the liquid. The marked skirt witness wore also was produced and identified. Witness ran to a chemist, and ultimately Dr. Moir attended to her injuries. She. was removed to the Hospital the same evening (3rd June) and remained in that institution up to the sth July. She suffered great pain. ' Mr Napier did not cross-examine. Nellie Hanna, a girl' 13 years of age, said she was1 sent a message on the 3rd June, and when • she got outside she saw some person. She did not know whether it was a man or a woman. This person tried to "g"ab'_ her and witness at once ra«f and told her mother. When her mother went out she heard her scream. She saw her come back after hearing the scream. Her face was then all white.

Harold Blonrfield, chemist's assistant, Ponsonby Road, remembered Mrs Hanna coming to the shop on the evening of 3rd June. She seemed to be in great pain and her face had a red appearance; it seemed to be covered in blood. Witness- thought it was some acid which gave the woman that appearance; he could smell the acid. Her dress and-ai'ms were also discoloured. Witness applied oil and advised the woman to get medical assistance. :

Dr. Moir said that Mrs Hanna came to his house at Ponsonby Road about 8.30 p.m. on the 3rd June. She complained of great pain in her face. There were great brown patches over her face. He came to the conclusion that she had. a strong corrosive liquid over her. He gave it a test and found it to be acid. He washed her iaee and eyes with a strong solution of soda and water, and washed her thoroughly with it. Hfe applied /cocaine to the eyes and recommended her to go to the hospital at once/

Dr. Pabst, who attended Mrs Hanna when she was admitted to the Hospital, said he found her suffering from burns on the face. Her eyes were also swollen. The injuries. could be done by sulphuric acid: or vitriol. There would be some permanent disfigurement on Mrs Hanna.

Dr. Williams, of the Hospital staff, said he saw Mrs Hanna after she was admitted.

At this stage the woman swooned away, and was carried out into one of the Court rooms. s Mr Napier, in answer to His Honor, said he would consent to the case proceeding in the absence of prisoner.

Dr. Williams then resumed his -evidence. She was treated for the burns in the Hospital. - • Mrs Helena Halford, living dn Sussex-street, .Grey Lynn, said that about last Easter she had a conversation wtih accused in Karangahape Road. She asked witness where she was going, and witness replied that she was going to see her sister Helen. She said, "Don't go there; she lias been, carrying on with a man. She is not only breaking- up one home, but two." Witness asked her who the man was, and accused askea her to guess. Witness could not guess •who it was, and accused would not tell'-her; Witness said /she would tell accused's sister what she said. She replied, "You can. tell her if you like. I would give sixpence to be behind the door, and see how she takes it." Witness asked accused if she would go down with her and have it out with her sister. She said —"No; if I did I would smash her. One blow from me would do for her. What could such a small woman do against a big woman like I am?" She added that her sister would come down to her when she heard what she had said. "Tell her if she comes near my place I will scald her." That was all she said.

In answer to Mr Napier witness said she did not give evidence in the Lower GpiJtrt. Witness told Mrs •Hanna of this conversation. Witness thought it was better the two

sisters, should have it out, but she was not anxious about it. She thought it would be better if one bister went to another. To Mr Tole: Mrs Hanna is a cousin of my mother's by marriage. His Honor: Did you know before you had the conversation in Karangahape Road that the two sisters were on bad terms? Witness: No. Constable Cullinane, stationed at Ponsohby, said Paget-street, Ponsonby, and Queen-street, Eiehmond, were separated by half-a-mile. About 8.30 i or a quarter to nine on 3rd June he I went to Mrs Hanna's house in Paget- ! street. She was suffering great pain. I Witness made a search in the right of J way leading from Paget-street to Mrs j Hanna's back door and found a lid of I a tin box there, which he handed to j Constable Mcllveney, and an apron ' Mi's Hanna was wearing. It contained j some niud. Witness took Mrs Hanna to the Hospital. Constable Mcllveney, doing detective duty in Auckland, said on night of 3rd June he went with Detectives Maddern and Bailey to Mrs Hanna's place, in Paget-street. On arrival there Constable Cullinane handed him the lid containing fluid and an apron (Avet). The chemist put the fliud in a bottle. Witness then went to Eiehmond, which he wo\ild say was a mile from Paget-street. Maddern and Bailey were with him. They went into the j kitchen and he remained at the bed- ! room door.; He noticed that the skirt i accused was wearing had several holes j burned in it. Accused said she had it burned at the fire that night. Witness arrested her for throwing vitriol in her sister's face. She replied: "I am innocent. Can't you men forgive ! me if my sister will?" Later on ac- ! cused said: "See Nellie and tell her not to press the charge." When accused was being brought to the police station in a cab she said that she tried it on her hands and it did not burn her. She tried it on some rags, and. it burned them. Accused said she threw it to frighten her sister; not to burn her face. If she had" thought it would have burned her she would not have done it. Her husband had been carrying on with her, and she had been running after him. On the 4th June (next morning) at the corner of Paget and Anglesea streets he saw a broken bottle. He collected the remains, which he handed to Mr Pond, analyst, also the clothing Mrs Hanna was wearing and the dress accused was wearing when arrested. Detective Maddern gave corrobora,tive evidence. J. A. Pond, who examined the clothing worn by Mrs Hanna and accused, and also the liquid, said it was a corrosive fluid, and would burn and disfigure the human flesh. Sulphuric acid was commonly called vitriol. This concluded the case for the Crown. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Napier addressed the jury. He said he did not ask for a verdict of not guilty. He contended that they should return a verdict on the second count in the indictment—a verdict of assault, occasioning bodily harm. His Honor then summed up the case to the jury.

The jury retired to consider- their verdict at twenty minutes to three, and returned to Court at 3.15 with a verdict of guilty against prisoner on the first count.

Mr Napier spoke in mitigation of sentence. He said accused was enciente. She had always led an exemplary life and her children were young. Her husband was an industrious man and he had a comfortable homl.

His Honor said he could not trust himself to speak on the crime of which prisoner had been found guilty. It must be a substantial sentence against prisoner, one for the punishment of the individual, and the other for the protection of society. The sentence of the Court would be five years imprisonment.