SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Press, Volume XIV, Issue 1838, 4 March 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, March 3. (Before hia Honor Mr Justice Gresson and a Common Jury.) The Court re-assembled at 10 a.m. SENTENCE. Henry Thomas Lawrence, convicted yesterday of an indecent assault, was brought up for sentence. Mr Slater applied that the prisoner should be imprisoned for a short time with the addition of corporeal punishment. His Honor said that was the course he proposed to adopt in the present instance. He deeply regretted that there was. no reformatory in the colony for juvenile offenders. He thought that corporeal punishment was a most salutary one in similar circumstances to the present occasion. His Honor addressed the prisoner, and said that he had the power to inflict penal servitude for a long period upon him; tmfc that taking his youth into consideration, and to prevent contamination by association with the other prisoners, he should order him to be imprisoned for one calendar month, and to receive two whippings with the instrument known as the cat-o'-nuie-tails, at

intervals of not less than ten days. Twelve lashes would be inflicted on each occasion. His Honor gave instructions to the gaoler to see the sentence oarried out in tho presence of the surgeon of the gaol. FOBGEBY AMD UTTEBING. Emily Ann Needham was iudieted for these offences. Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown. The prisoner, who pleaded Not Guilty, was defended by Mr Joynt. Mr Thomas Grange was chosen foreman of tho jury. ... Mr Duncan having opened the case, called as the first witness — Detective Feast, who stated—l went to prisoner's bouse on December 26. I took possession of the crinoline and pair of stays produced. Prisoner and Mr Bowler were present. She (prisoner) made no remark as to the goods. Henrietta Bowler said—l keep a shop in High street, Christchurch, for the sale of stays and crinolines. I know prisoner by sight. In December last she was at my shop; I believe about the 3rd. She purchased a crinoline and a pair of stays. She said that she would send Mr Peacock's coaohman for them, ns the carriage was close by. I understood her to mean Mr Peaoock of the Papanui road. 1 made up the parcel by her directions, addressing it to Miss Morgan, at Mr Peacock's. She tendered the cheque produced in payment. I sent the cheque next door to be cashed. The value of the goods was 295. I gave her £6 Jls in change, making a mistake of 10s. She said that it was but a small parcel and she took it away with her. I identify the articles produced as those sold to her. Cross-examined—l saw her the next time at the regatta on December 26. I went there expressly to see if I could find the person who had been to my shop At the Heathcote regatta I went by my husband's directions to see if I could find her amongst the persons on j the hill. I had not previously heard the prisoner's name mentioned. Detective Feast was with my husband. My husband told mc in his presence to take special notice of the first couple on the hill. I identified the prisoner as the person who came to my shop. I was about 150 yards from them. I next saw her at the Resident Magistrate's Court. The goods in Court were partly made by myself. I have not the slightest doubt as to the articles. There is not in Christchurch a pair of stays of the same cut. My mark (No 1) is on them ; I put it there myself. I next saw the articles in the Resident Magistrate's Court during my examination. I did not see them in the interim. J T Peacock—l live on the Papanui road. The cheque produced is neither written nor signed by mc ; my initials are JT, and not T J, as the cheque is signed. Henry William Francis—l am ledger keeper at tho Bank of Australasia. The cheque, produced, was dishonoured as the drawer had no account at the bank. This was the the case for the Crown. Mr Duncan briefly addressed the jury, contending that the case against the prisoner was perfectly clear. There could be no doubt as to her identity, upon the want of which he supposed that his learned friend intended to rely. Mr Joynt replied to the arguments of Mr Duncan. He argued that the alleged identification of the prisoner by Mrs Bowler had not been proved, as it had not been a free and voluntary act on her part. She had not apparently exercised her own unbiassed judgment. He contended that Mrs Bowler might have been led by a resemblance between the prisoner and the person who obtained the goods to make the statement she had done. The identification of the prisoner had been probably stated by her after her mind had been influenced by the conduct of the police. The goods also had not, to his mind, been satisfactorily made out. His Honor summed up, dwelling upon the more salient points of the case. He read over some portions of the evidence, commenting upon them as he proceeded. He remarked that the whole question was one of identity. The jury, without retiring, found a verdict of Guilty of Uttering. There was another indictment of a similar nature against the prisoner. By tho advice of Mr Joynt, the prisoner pleaded Guilty to this indictment, which charged her with forging and uttering a cheque of the Union Bank of Australia. The Crown Prosecutor withdrew the remaining indictments against the prisoner. Mr Joynt stated that the prisoner was connected with a highly respectable family. He thought that it was a very painful case, and he hoped that the Court would be meroiful in the sentence. No sentence, however severe, could add to the anguish she had already undergone. She was in delicate health, and far advanced in pregnanoy. Unfortunately, prior to her marriage, she had become entangled in an engagement with a pressing creditor to satisfy whose pressing demands she had unhappily resorted to a culpable mode of obtaining money. His client intended to leave the country at the expiration of her sentence.

His Honor said that it was a most distressing case. In passing sentence he should be influenced by her sex, her position, and above all by the wretched accommodation of the gaol. Mr Boston, the gaoler, at some inconvenience to himself, had undertaken to provide such a place for her, ns would prevent her J associating with drunken prostitutes, as she would otherwise have to do. Hβ deeply commiserated her husband, and could imagine also what the prisoner must have suffered. The sentence upon her would be six months' imprisonment at hard labor on the first indictment, and one month's imprisonment, also with hard labor, on the second; the latter sentence to take effect at the expiration of the first. ATTEMPT TO PEOCTJBE ABOBTION. Thomas Tates was charged with this offence. Mr Duncan conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded Not Guitty. Mr John Caygill was chosen foreman of the juryEllen Drummond—ln December I was staying next to the prisoner's house in Christchurch. On a Saturday, I believe after Christmas, I heard Maria Hackett, the deceased, moaning in the house. I left Mrs Wood's house and went to see the deceased. Prisoner was in the parlour. I asked him if he had had medical advice for her. He said that he had been to Dr Frankieh. I went upstairs and saw her. I thought that she was dying. Prisoner was not present. She was vomiting the whole time. The substance she vomited was very dark; I did not see any blood. I waited till the doctor came ; before he did co I saw Mr Yatee outside the house. I told

him that there was danger and tuTi ""**"* get into trouble if she died wffi h*** l Prisoner went for Dr Prankish directly with him. I went upstS room with the doctor. I oflU-d t« f ,h8 night with her but she refused. I JltP ail returning in about half nn hour R S dead. On tho next day I wn< \ n \\*i Wa * Sergeant Jeffrey was there. He tolw sion of the bedthings on which «l,n. P ? S * Cs * The bedding was lightly d£&3l sheet was of a greenish colour. " 9 Cross-examined—Deceased died nTvw hour after Dr Frankish had seen her Ti *"* never spoken to prisoner in Christchurch Rose Amelia Wood" said—l knew the a ceased, who had lived with prisoner &a ho. keeper for about fourteen months T t that the deceased was ill and that «i™ JPj about December 26. mil^ Charles Mottley—l am a Burgeon in telton; I am duly qualified. I prisoner in Lyi telton. He camo to mc tW on December 10. He asked mc if i *[! prescribe anything for a woman suffering. C! whites. m He said that the woman from violent headache. (Witness txn&» described the alleged illness of the woman ) T gave him a prescription. The document} hold in my hand contains portions of that n«. scription. It is initialled by mc. The whol' was written by mc. He left mo with the pro! scription and returned on December 21. jr" came in a great hurry saying that the woman 6 who was twenty-six or twenty-eight years old* was very ill, suffering from pains and nausea. { gave him another prescription and advised him to call in a Chrietchurch doctor. I did not see him again until tho inquest. Ho ne?e? told mc that she was pregnant. Cross-examined—l thought that both pre. soriptions were for Mrs Yates. One ia f o l compound rhubarb pills and calomel. Had I known that the woman had been five or m, weeks pregnant I should nat have givon tiis pills. Even if she were pregnant there could bo no objection to the pills. Had a young female, in a state of pregnancy for five or six weeks, taken eighteen grains of calomol in the course of a week she might be salivated, but would not otherwise be affected in tho slightest degree. The pills might posßibly procure. abortion in a pregnant woman, Ido not think it probable that they would. By tho Court—l supposed when I prescribed that the female was the wife of Yates the prisoner. I did not think it necessary to ask him if she was pregnant, because Idid not think it possible that a pregnant woman could suffer from tho maladies he described. This was the first time I ever prescribed for & married woman whom I had not seen. I have never been asked to do so. I have sometimes prescribed for a male pationt whom 1 have not seen, but I do not approve of ite being done as a rule. Austin Fussell—l am manager at Mesare Gould and Co, chemists. On one occasion I, saw prisoner in the shop, about ten dayu before the inquest. He ordered a shilling's worth of steel drops. After seeing the quia* tity, he said he would take another shilling's worth. As I put up the second quantity, I asked him if he knew the use and dose of ii. He replied that he did not. I asked him, v If it was fov female use ? " As he replied in tto affirmative, I told him how to give it—tea drops in a glass of water three times a day. If after a few days the dose was not strong enough, he could increase it to fifteen drope, He bought two ounces. He took away the two bottles, which were labelled " steel drops," I never saw him in the shop again. 480 drop go to one ounce. Sergeant Jeffrey—l saw deceased and tie prisoner at the house of the latter on the Sunday after Christmas day. He said that deceased had been ill for a week. Yates ssid a doctor had seen her on Saturday night, fior illness arose from pains in the ofaesfc and sow throat. He said that she had given mc a prescription, and that he had got some medicine from Mr Wallace. He said that he had do« stroyed the prescription. I searched tlsß house, and found a quantity of bedding, efl which deceased had lain, stuffed between th« bed and the wall. The things were saturatel with blood. I went there on the Mondiy following, and asked Yates if he had not gd any medioine in the house. He said that lis would tell the whole at the inquest. He m arrested on Tuesday by mc od a charge of the murder of Maria Hackett. He said that itwas the wish of deceased to have the medicine she had procured destroyed. He said that w should never have done what he had if ho hm known that it was so dangerous. She threat* ened to destroy herself unless he got her •torn medicine to procure abortion. She said tv« many people did it, and it was strange that " ie could not. He found the fiagments of tw prescription in a closet-pan in the house. John David Frankish—On 26th December last, I saw the prisoner at my house m ta* evening. He asked mc to see his hoammpf, who was ill, suffering from pain in the bonm 1 and vomiting a good deal. At ten p®>i x saw the deceased in bed. I examined her ex* ternally. The abdomen was greatly s^ m ' I concluded from the symptoms that she w» dying of mortification of the intestines. * found that the bedolothes were saturated Wf blood. I prescribed a stimulant, stating the prisoner that I thought that deceased w* dying. I then left; On the following mom' ing I saw the body. The prisoner asked m for a certificate as to the cause of death, * declined. I made a post-mortem examination of the body. The intestines were acutely w flamed, as wa ß also the covering membf«f I am convinced that she died from nwrfcwj tion of the intestines caused by abortion,®" I consider that some preparation of >^ drops would have produced , sunliaf a ®fd pearances to those on deceased s tongue m throat. I asked prisoner if he had tered any tincture of steel. He replied tm to answer that question he -must unpW*» „ third party. He said that what he had pwj her had been made up from a P* e f Dr Mottley's. He added that he had got wj bottles of steel drops. The deeeMjd asked him to get her something and »» had got the medicine in order to p*"^ exposure. . . ._ w Cross-exarained-The prescription gijen | Dr Mottley could not have caused abew taken according to the directions appenae* • This was the case for the Crown. « f Mr Duncan addressed the jury. B J\;l 6f them simply to decide whether the. pn»" had procured a noxious thing and Jw. istcred or caused to be adromisterea noxious thing to the deceased wit"i avi procure abortion. , ri linC aa Mr Wynn Williams replied arguing that there was no proof tja . the medicine had ever been taken oy "• ceased. mfl «§r* His Honor summed «P» clt ! a tions of the evidence, oxplamiog thsia ■» proceeded.

The iory retired for a few minutes, and reJned a verdict of Guilty. On being asked if be wished to make any gtawment the prieoner handed m a written after reading it remarked that tfcfpruoner had been guilty at first of an im•S act and then of an act which had re"Kd m! deplorably. Prisoner had been SundguiWy of a very heinous crime, and the ■See »P°n him would be imprisonment for r" -ears a t hard labor. The Court adjourned until Monday next, at leven a m., when the civil cases will be taken.