MALE WITNESSES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 183, 4 August 1936, Page 5

MALE WITNESSES.

NAMES SUPPRESSED. EXTENSION OF ORDER. MAN AND WIFE'S STORY. (By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.) NAPIER, this day. When the hearing of evidence at the trial of Isabel Annie Aves was resumed to-day an application for the suppression of the names of certain male witnesses, in addition to those of the principal female witnesses, was made by Mr. H. B. Lusk. Yesterday an application was made for the suppression of certain names, said Mr. Lusk. ''It was overlooked at the time that publication of the names of the men connected with the women would be just as detrimental as the publication of the names of the women themselves." He applied accordingly for similar prohibition for the male witnesses. Mr. Justice Blair: That should have been done. Mr. Lusk: The Press have so far considerately refrained from the publication of the names. His Honor: I appreciate the reasons for making the application for one of the witnesses, but the difficulty is that the police in future might find themselves severely handicapped. It is desirable that people who are frank with the police should be protected. The extension of the order is granted. A third female witness for the Crown, a married woman, described her efforts to get into touch with Aves in June of last year, when she said an operation was performed with a certain result. In February of this year she again visited Aves when the same' operation was performed with the same result. Mr. Harker: Did you do anything yourself before you went to Aves? Witness: No. Why did you have the operation? — Because in January of last year I had a severe operation and I was told by the doctor that I must not undo all the good it had done. You had every opportunity of placing yourself unreservedly in his hands, did you not ? Witness did not answer. Mr. Harker: I take it that you and your husband went off 011 your own to break the law as far as you both were concerned. Is that what you tell us.' —Yes. Mr. Lusk: You went to Aves because you had heard of lief before? —Yes. Sum of £10 Paid. The husband of the previous witness gave evidence of taking his wife to see Aves.

Alt'. Lusk: Do you know Aves? Is that she in the dock?

Witness: I could not swear to that; I only saw her for about five minutes and that was at night.

Witness said the sum fixed for the operation was £10, and that his wife was away for three or four days. Witness later went to pay Aves. who was not there, and he paid a girl at the house £10. Mr. Harker: How did you know the address was Fitzroy Avenue? Witness: I have more or known it for years. Mr. Harker: Did you say in the Lower Court that you could not remember the address'!—l don't think so. If you.did say so, was it correct? — No. Before you went to Hastings 011 the first occasion, did you receive any kind of communication from the accused.? — Xo. You went to Hastings with your wife entirely of your own free will to break the law?—l suppose that is it. Evidence of having visited Aves in May, l!K!o, in company with a male friend, was given by the fourth of the principal female witnesses, a single woman. An operation had been successful. Witness again visited Aves in March of this year, when a second operation was performed with the same result. To Mr. Harker, witness said she and lier friend discussed marriage, but decided they could not afford it. When you were questioned by the police did you tell them all you have told us to-day?— No. His Honor: Had you any idea that the police were going to see you?— No. It came as a surprise. Evidence was also given by the male friend of the previous witness, who said that on the occasion of their first visit to Aves the sum of £10 was paid to the accused. On the second occasion Aves' fee was £25, and witness gave her an 1.0. U. for that amount, and later paid her £;>. His Honor: Was any explanation given as to difference in the price?— No. His Honor: Did you raise the question? —Yes. but I was given-110 reason 1 for it. Witness.said he had paid sums of £3 10/ and £2, but received a receipt only for the second amount. He had received demands from solicitors in Hastings asking for the payment of £1 per week. To Mr. Harker witness said his wages in March. of this year were £2 7/6 weekly. In view of this he and the previous witness had decided that they could not afford to get married. Mr. Harker: How did you go to Hastings on the first occasion ? Witness: By car. Whose?—My own car. You have a motor car, then? —I did have one. (Proceeding.)