Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISCHARGED.

DOCTOR ON TRIAL

ILLEGAL OPERATION CHARGE, J& "'■:■■■ ■■ "V

CROWN'S CASE COLIaAPSES.

ATTITUDE OF GIRL WITNESS.

/The case against Qeorge Frederick Hewer, aged 39, a doctor, charged with unlawful use of an instrument, broke down at the Supreme Court this morning, when the most important witness, the young woman concerned, said she could not remembe.r what happened. At the judge's direction the jury returned a verdict of not 'guilty. and the accused was discharged. The accused was charged with having, on three occasions last September, used an instrument unlawfully on an unmarried woman, aged 26. Mr. Justice Smith presided. Mr. V. N...Hublse prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. R..A. Singer was for the defence. V The right-of challenge was freely uaere ■when the jury was being empanelled. ■ At the request of the Crown prosecutor the Court was cleared of all but oSiciale and those connected with the case. : ; Mr. Hubble drew the jury's attention to -a. , statement that the-young, woman had. had 1 an operation in Paluierston North two weeks before the alleged offence in Auckland*:'and said that had nothing to do .witti ; "the jury in the present case. ■ It might be, and apparently it was a fact, that an offenc-e had been committed in Palmerston North, but it did not come into the present proceedings, except in so far as it affected the condition of the young' woman. ' "Daughter's Life Ruined." A married woman said the young woman was her daughter. On September 21 witness went to Dr. Hewer's rooms in the City Chambers, told him her daughter was in trouble, and asked would he help her. She told Hewer that some man had come into her daughter's life and ruined her. On that visit witness' daughter was not present; she was in Palmerston North. Witness wired for her daughter, and they botli went to Hewer's rooms. Witness said, "Thie is the girl I was speaking about." Hewer was very; reluctant'.to help wi*:>e?<, but she begged him to help" her. She-told him how the girl, had been "let down" and deserted. Hewer said his fee- would be £20, but witness said she could not give it. He asked how much she could give, and ehe said £10, which she would give to the girl to bring in the afternpon; .. Hewer said something about ; )it beinT; a pity, and that he would arrange matters. ■ : ■

Previous Operation. To Mr. Singer: Witness' daughter told her she had tried other means " ! before coming to Auckland, and that there had been a previous operation Witness said her daughter had done "silly tlririfjs" to herself, and the young man who was responsible for her condition also made attempts. • - Mr. Singer: You tola U3 none of these, things in the loner Court. •. ■ ; ■ • Wi tafies: I was so* nervous that I did •.not know quite .whatfl eaid. I did not reinenjber everythifag..Principal Witness' Attitude. . ; The-young won)ai> ; cp'ncerned, aged 26, ~ said she .had been' living at Pajmerston North before she came Auckland. She described the visits* ehe paid to Hewer's rooms. ■; She ; iold him what happened in Palmerstpn North.. He we? asked her if ehe'had4ll6 money and ehe gave him the £10. She did not get, a recieipt. : "... ■ .•' ' ;*?•'( : : " Witness 'was pressed by tfie (jrown Pirpsecutor to say what happened to her; - at" Hewer's, xooms, but she only said . she did.jnpt see anything and* could not . 4 e s c rißS :.the examinations that were vfliade.; She sa-vv Hewer every "ii* weekj.,:?'. . "■■

•V> After'- tihe Crown: Prosecutor had tried several:vtitnes. to get; Witness to say more, e&actlyv';Wiia.t' was done to her, his Honor asked lier to cast :her mind back to trjr and - remember what had occurred.

Witness: 1 saw nothing -of the examination. When I made a statement before, I was not in a fit state to do so-

I Mr. Hubble again endeavoured to get witness to remember what happened, and his Honor reminded her that she •was a Crown witness, and should remember she was on her oath. '

Witness 7 persisted in her statement that ele did not see what happened when she was examined, and she was not definite as to what she felt. ■' ■ .:

His Honor: You understand that you are on your oath. / Witness: * Yes, I understand that, I saw nothing. ■ At this stage Mr. Hubble asked leave to treat the witness as hostile. Mr. Singer, when appealed to, said it ■was a serious matter for his friend to do as proposed. From the manner, speech and demeanour there did not appear to be.any desire on the part of the witness to be hostile. Reference to Depositions. The question, was raised as to whether recourse could be had to the depositions taken in the llower Court, where the witness had been giving evidence. His Honor pointed out that the evidence was given only a short while ago, and it see. *Ed a travesty if any girl could go into the witness box and say she could not remember, and that that was to be the end of it. Mr. Singer: , It might really be that the witness did not remember. His Honor said the witness could explain if she was an honest witness. On the point of using the depositions in the Supreme Court, Mr. Singer said .that he had been :\ in casee where he had; wished to uee the depositions, but the Crown Prosecutoit had objected, saying" the Supreme Court had to deal-with the' evidence that was given in the .Supreme Court. . His Honor said he proposed to permit the Crown Prosecutor to ask the witness whether she , remembered' makirig a statement on a previous occasion. If she did not, then he would have to tell the jury that they must acquit the accused, but he not £oin# to have i the course of justice paralysed by ! actions of the sort .that had happened in the Court that morning.

Mr. Singer suggested that perhaps that was not the exact word, to use.

His Honor said perhaps he should qualify his remarks. :He did not mean the case that was now before the Court, but was speaking in a general way when he said such conduct would paralyse justice if it were allowed to proceed unchecked.

Court granted counsel a short adjournment to consider the point raised, and upon resuming it was laid down that witness coultl -be-asked if .she made.a statement on a previous occasion. . . ■■■ "I.Don't Remember." Mr. Hubble, readin* from the depositions tajcen in' the lower Court, asked Witness if; she,, remembered 'stating that Hewer hid done certain things.-; .Witness said* she::dijd make: a statement in the lower C<j>urt, but she did not read': it over; although she signed lt -: ' \.. V Mr. Hubble asked .witness, about a. statement; concerning an instrument. ■ ; Witness: No, I don't-remember saying that in- the 1 lower Court. When that statement was made I was. not well; 1 did not see any instrument: I did not see what • happened. ; His Honor asked MeJ Hubble if there was any other evidence! All that could be said at present was that witness made a statement: in ihe lower Court, and now said she could not say what happened.. . • ; Mr. Hubble said he] had no further evidence. He realised that the case rested practically entirely on the witness in the box. He also realised that he had a public duty to carry the matter as rar as he could. • Mr. Singer contended that strictly in law the depositions were not a statement. , His Honor said the' ordinary rule applied—any person;, ordinarily compos -mentis, making a statement, and signing it, was presumed to know what was in that statement. "Only Wasting Time." After further argument between couhsol, his Honor said he thought he should interfere at ; that stage. - The C"fo\™ had to prove to the Court,'on evidence produced to the Court, that an instrument was used. Evidence of use of an instrument was essential; a mere examination was not sufficient. : As the case stood there was' no proof whatever. The witness said she did not remember or not whether an instrument was used. That was ino proof on which the jury could find a verdict of guilty, and it would be only wasting time to go further, and .it was his iuty to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The jury immediately found a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19321101.2.131

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 259, 1 November 1932, Page 9

Word Count
1,397

DISCHARGED. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 259, 1 November 1932, Page 9

DISCHARGED. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 259, 1 November 1932, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert