GRAVE CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 184, 6 August 1925, Page 9

GRAVE CHARGE.

WOMAN ON TRIAL.

IDENTIFIED BY GIRL.

EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE.

Charged with tho unlawful use of an instrument, Georgina Ellis Colnett (Mr. R. A. Singer) was placed on trial to-day at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury. "I am compelled to admit at the outset that the corroboration—if it can be called corroboration—is indeed very slight in this case," said Mr. S. L. Paterson, who conducted the prosecution. A single woman, aged 22, was the first witness. She stated that she discovered she was in a certain condition, and, in consequence of what a woman friend told her she went to accused's house on April 22. She saw Mrs. Colnett. Mr. Paterson: Is Mrs. Colnett here? Witness gazed at the dock, and looked all round the Court chamber. The question was repeated. i Witness: I believe that's her sitting over there (indicating the dock). Whoni did you ask for at the door?— Mrs. Colnett, and she said she was Mrs. Colnett. Witness described the room in which an interview with Mrs. Colnett took place—the second room on the right along the corridor. Witness said she was a married woman, and asked accused to help her. "I asked her what the charge would be, and Bhe Baid it would be quite all right." Witness returned on the ' following afternoin, as instructed, and Mrs. Colnett showed her into the second room on the left side of the corridor! It was a bedroom. An operation took place in the bedroom. Witness did not feel anything. Crown Prosecutor: Who used the cathetor f Witness: Mrs. Calnett used it. Witness described the house, situated in Williamson Avenue. "'I think the name was spelled 'P-A-R-M-Ejf but I may be mistaken." Can you say whether this woman was the woman you saw there? —Yeß, she was the wOman.

Mr. dinger: The friend who told you to go,, who was she ? You have not disclosed 1 her name, and still refuse to disclose it, even to the police?—l have not disclosed it.

What was said about payment?— She said, "Provided you Bay nothings about i it, it will be quite all right." Mr. finger: I see. No money to be paid —-the pleasure of doing it quite I sufficient. You didn't bother to get any money ? . . Witness: No. Are you prepared to say where this friend of yours lives? —No. Thank you; I see. Under further cross-examination witness said she saw the instrument. It was true that in the Lower Court she said she did not see the instrument. Here the witness broke down, and the Court was adjourned for a few minutes. On resuming, witness-said she recognised accused this morning when she took her hat off. She looked different in the hat she was wearing in the Lower Court from what ehe does to-day. You had considerable difficulty in identifying her this morning?— -I did. Question of Corroboration. Other evidence ■ for the Crown was giyjn »by Dr. T. Endletsberger," Dr. F. Webster, Senior . Detective Hammond, who was in charge of the case, and the woman who called in the doctor when the girl collapsed. ~ Mr. Singer did not call evidence, and Mr. Paterson did not address the jury. His Honor said th¥jj?6_ly suggested corroboration was that the girl was able to describe the house. It was slight corroboration, of course. The charge was a serious one, said Mr. Singer, and the only evidence was that of an accomplice. It was necessary for the jury to have corroboration of an accomplice's statement. Mr. Justice Reed: I would not put it that way. It is a rule of practice that juries should be warned that it is desirable to have corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice, but they are entitled to act as they think fit. Story Hard to Believe. Continuing, Mr. Singer said the jury ought not to convict unless l the evidence of the accomplice was corroborated. Her evidence would have to be subjected to the closest scrutiny. Regarding what had been said about the girl's description of the house, if there was any corroboration it was very much lightened by the fact.that she did not describe closely the rooms inside. With regard to the bedroom, she did not go nearly as far as Senior Detective Hammond. In any case, hundreds of houses were built on a similar plan. Then the girl had given the name of the house incorrectly, spelling it P-a-r-mre instead of P-a-r-a-n-e. It was most unusual that the man named by the girl as responsible should not be aware of her condition. She had definitely stated that nobody knew of her condition.

"I do not think a more unbelievable story of the transactions girl and accused could have been told," continued Mr. Singer. "She said she told accused she was a married woman, that she gave no name, no. address, simply Mount Eden—where she did not live —and that accused said the price didn't matter. Well, gentlemen, when a transaction like this takes place, usually a price is paid or mentioned, or else some good reason is given for the operation." His Honor: I think the usual thing is for someone else to go first, to make all arrangements, but in this case the girl says nobody knew about it. Perhaps a Third Party. It was astounding that no price should have been v mentioned, no amount named, continued Mr. Singer. Was it to be conceived that it was a pleasure for a woman to do this for a stranger, and the greater the stranger the greater the pleasure? Could such a story be believed? She actually asked the jury to believe that the., woman who told her of Mrs. Colnett did not know of her condition. Why was that bosom friend's name not disclosed? One of the reasons for examining an accomplice's story with extreme care was that an accomplice could shift the blame on to an innocent person, in order to shield the culprit. There could be no doubt that an illegal act had been committed in this case. Who committed it? Might it not be this friend, whose identity was unknown, even to the police. The jury could imagine how eagerly Senior Detective Hammond must have been pressing for the name all these months, yet it had never been revealed. Was it possible that Mrs. Colnett did not perform the operation, but that this other unknown woman did? "I say there is no corroboration, and that here you have an unsatisfactory story of a girl who is obviously not telling the truth," concluded Mr. Singer. "And unless you can believe her story you .cannot find accused guilty." . J

Juryman Asks a Question. "Did she not describe the bedroom, and isn't that corroboration?" queried A juryman. The judge turned to the depositions, and read the girl's statement with r*» gard to the interior of the bedroom. Mr. Singer pointed out that the girl did not mention things described by Senior Detective Hammond, and this weakened her story. It had been proved that abortion was procured, said Mr. Justice Reed. Three questions arose: Was it done by accused, was it done by the girl herself, or was it done by a third party? The jury could eliminate altogether the thought that the girl procured it herself. Was it proved to the jury's satisfaction that accused was responsible? It had become a rule of practice—some said a rule of law —that juries must be warned that it was unsafe to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The accomplice might shift the blame to any person. In this case, her story was in some respects improbable. There was the improbability of any person desiring to perform the operation for nothing. With regard to her description of the house, if she had made a shot in the dark, not having been there in reality, would she have been as accurate as she was?

The jury retired at 12.50 p.m