CASES AGAINST MRS. NEVILL

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 63, 8 December 1926, Page 12

CASES AGAINST MRS. NEVILL

JURY FAIL TO AGREE NEW TRIAL ORDERED FURTHER CHARGE TO-DAY The case against Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Nevill, who was charged with using an instrument upon Elsie Davis on or about July 11, 1926, with intent to procure a miscarriage was concluded yesterday in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Alpers when the jury failed to agree after four hours and ten minutes' retirement. A new trial was ordered to be set down for the February sessions. A further charge will be prepared against the accused this morning. Bail was allowed on the same sureties. Further evidence for the prosecution was called by Mr. P. .S. K, Macassey. Eric Ernest Colvin gave evidence corroborative of that given by the previous witness Miss Cochran, who had told the Court that the accused had performed certain operations upon her. Pardons for Truthful Witnesses. Under cross-examination by Mr. Mazengarb, witness admitted that he kifew that abortion was a crime, and that, as an accomplice to it, he was liable to a term of. imprisonment. He had, however, understood that he would be pardoned if ho gave his evidence truthfully. Mr. Macassey stated that pardons would be granted to all witnesses whose evidence was truthfully given. His Honour pointed out to the jury that this was quite a common procedure in such cases. “If witnesses give their evidence candidly,-” he said, “then they will bo pardoned.” The depositions of Rena Brown, who was unable to attend in person, were then read to the jury. The depositions outlined arrangements which had been made between Rena Brown and the accused for the performance of an operation. Owing to the'arrest of Rena Brown, the operation did not take place. Frank Albert Afaher stated that he was responsible for Miss Brown’s condition, and had driven her to Lyall Bay. “Service to the State." Ella Sylvia Bush, of Wanganui, related how a number of operations had been performed upon her by the accused,. The operations were performed at Mrs. Nevi IPs residence, where instruments were used upon her. Later on, said witness, she stayed with Mrs. Wilson, at whose house she was attended by Dr. Jacobsen. At the Wanganui Hospital, a miscarriage occurred, which she thought had been caused by an examination by Dr. Jacobsen. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevenson, witness agreed that in the Magistrate’s Court she had said that Mrs. Nevill was not the cause of her miscarriage. Witness admitted that she had previously had two illegitimate children. His Honour: Are they nice healthy children ?—“Yes.” His Honour: Ah! Then you have done some service to the State, my child. Witness: Thank you. Allan Manguson, a hotelkeeper, related how he had visited the accused s house, where he arranged with the accused for an operation to be performed on Miss Rush. The fee demanded by Mrs. Nevill was .£35. Claire Carolan, who had been employed as a cook in Manguson’s hotel, said that she went with Miss Rush to Mrs. Nevill’s house, and paid a sum of money ,in an envelope to the woman who ° P by Mr. ’ c P ,fo ")-, T?) gy a counsel for the defence, informed the Court that he did not propose to call evidence. Micassev P In addressing the jury, Mr. Knifes ed In many respects. “A Mysterious Case.” Mr. T. M. Wilford opened his address to the iury by stressing the fact that the law regarded the crime with which the accused was charged as a. partt cularly serious one. Bxit, if th y able to sift the wheat from the chaff, members of the jury would have no doubt whatever about the case. Counsel dealt at some length with Hie question of evidence given by accomplices, pointing out that such evidence had always to be corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. This not only to the crime itself, but to the identity of the person charged with it In this case Air. Wilford considered that there was no evidence giveni by an accomplice which could be called reliable, and which was properly corroborated. The accomplices evidence had been called by the Crown to 1113I 113 ! 5 ® the jury think that because Airs. Nevill had interfered with other women she had done so with Mrs. Davis. , Sir. Wilford’s defence was that the accused had never touched Mrs. Davis. "The only person.” he said, who knows anything about the operation upon Airs. Davis, when it occurred and where it occurred, is Airs. Davis herself. Hie case was a mysterious one, counsel continued. “You haven’t got the whole of the facts,” lie snid, “and you never will.” The defence had never had a chance, said Mr. Wilford, to crossexamine Mrs. Davis on the charge brought against the accused. Mrs. Davis had been cross-examined on a charge relative to July 5* but not as far as the present charge—which referred to Julv 11—was concerned. In Mr. Wilford’s opinion it was natural for anyone to believe one of two things—either that Afrs. Davis performed the operation on herself, or that it had been done by some person other than the accused. There was a want of frankness behind the case which prevented the jury from finding jut the actual truth. His Honour Sums Up. His Honour dealt at length with some of the points raised in the course of counsel’s address. The mistake in the date when the crime was alleged to hav® been committed could not, in His Honour’s opinion, have embarrassed Mr. Stevenson, who was an experienced man. in the slightest. If the jury believed the story of Mrs. Davis they would be entitled to convict on that alone, though, as she was an accomplice, it would be wise to look for corroboration in other directions. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m. and returned at" 7.20 p.m.. stating they were unable to reach any agreement. As stated above, a new trial was ordered, nnd a further charge is to be f referred against accused to-day.