NOT GUILTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 258, 31 October 1925, Page 22

NOT GUILTY.

i » - -— MRS. ARNOTT ACQUITTED. GRAVE CHARGE NOT PROVED. The trial of Margaret Bodman Arnott (Mr. R. A. Singeri on charges of unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage, and, further, with attempting to use an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage, was concluded before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. Meredith, Crown Prosecuior. was examining the woman concerned at the luncheon adjournment. Further examination of the woman was continued in the afternoon. Mr. R. A. Singer opened his crossexamination at 2.45 p.m. Mr. Singer: Yortr age is 3-3? —Yes. (.Questioned regarding the man C.ark, witness said: He threw mc in the mud twice: Mr. Singer: How do you mean— physically or sentimentally? You were quite friendly with Clark up till a certain Friday before he left Whangarel'.' —Yes. He was afraid of mc. Questioned further, witness said that money was not mentioned between the man and herself. All she wanted was a loan of £100. He bad never spent a penny on her, except £120 for the operation and £10 at Christmas, and later £.1 for pocket money. Mr. Singer suggested that two cheques for £17 10/ each, given her by Clark, were to pay bills to warehouses in town, to which witness answered: Xever in your life! Mr. Singer: I suggest that Clark is not the only man from whom you have received money?— Witness wa3 indignant. Counsel mentioned that there was a law made for people who made untrue statements. Witness said she started her business with a little money. She worked for that money. She admitted that she borrowed £100 from a man. She did not expect Clark to marry her, although he had promised to do so. She did not want him to marry her. Witness broke down at this stage, but answered questions between sobs. To Mr. Singer: She did not suggest bringing a breach of promise action against Clark. He told the people that he would keep her. but he told her he would not. She did not tell anyone she was going to sue him for £1500. Mr. Singer: Didn't you tell Clark that if he did not give you £100 you would tell the police ? Witness: I asked him to help mc. Mr. Singer: Why did you lose business because you denied this disreputable affair? Witness: Because people suspected mc, and if Clark had been a man he would have stood by mc. And I have never been dragged down so low as I have by this man. His Honor: Very well. That will do. A letter written by a firm of solicitors at the instigation of witness was read by Mr. Singer, but not before violent protests were made by witness. In that •etter witness threatened to take proceedings if Clark did not make some _ monetary compensation. Witness: That monetary compensation was for my business. Mr. Singer: Did you want to marry him i Witness: I won*t answer you. Mr. Singer then read a letter that had been written by witness to Clark, in which she avowed that she loved him still. That letter was written after the o.ne sent by the solicitors. Several other witnesses were called, including a number of detectives. Mr. Singer did not call evidence, and Mr. Meredith did*not address the jury. I In his address Mr. Singer said the evidence depended solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. I There was no doubt that the woman in i the case was an accomplice, and an ; accomplice of the worst type. The action ' of informing the police was taken out ; of a spirit of revenge. The man whom ! she originally intended to bring to Court : had left the country. To account for \ the statement made by accused, he would : point out that she had been terrified with the police about, but had later come for- : ward with the truth. But for the fact that Clark refused the woman £100 the case would never have been brought. ' He suggested, therefore, that the evidence of the woman did not warrant credence. His Honor stated that the jury need not trouble themselves with the question of the charge of the attempted use of :an instrument. The Crown's case was ; that the offence was committed. The j question was whethehr the Crown had | proved its case. They had to bear in ! mind that the principal witness for the i Crown was an accomplice, and therefore a party to the offence. There were cer- ; tain circumstances in the present case, I however, that had to be considered. A good deal had been said against the ; woman who had suffered at the hands of i Clark, but it had to be remembered that : he had besmirched her character and ; had gone away. His Honor concluded ; by carefully summarising all the cvi- • dence and facts of the ease. • The jury retired at 4.55 p.m., and : returned at 5.35 with a verdict of hot ■ guilty. | Mrs. Arnott was accordingly dis- ■ charged.