MARGARET KENDRICK'S DEATH.

Evening Star, Issue 12926, 24 September 1906, Page 4

MARGARET KENDRICK'S DEATH.

v THE INQUEST. The adjournea inquest on the body of Margaret Kendrick, aged thirty-five, who died at the hospital early on Saturday tooming under suspicious circumstances, was continued at the Magistrate's Court this afternoon "before Mr Coroner Graham and the following jury:—Messrs John Middletan Legget (foreman), Hugh Brockie, Thomas Charles Sprowle, Robert Horswell, Robert Brown Patton, and Thomas Millington.

Mr Solomon said that ho appeared, with the coroner's permission, to watch the proceedings on behalf of James Reynolds Hayne, the person who was charged, and at the outset, since he did not propose to interfere during the progress of the inquiry, he would ask to be allowed to say a word or two on the peculiarity (which, of coulee, was unavoidable) of these proceedings. As His Worship knew, a man was charged with a criminal offence. Upon that charge he would have an opportunity of defending himself at the proper time. * To-day, upon the inquiry that was to take place before His Worship, very much the same ground would be gone over, probably, as in-the criminal proceedings, the difference being that to-day the person charged would have no opportunity of defending himself, whereas at the criminal trial he would have such an opportunity., What he (Mr Solomon) would wish to remark was that, as was recently pointed out before the Legislature, there was a danger in proceedings such as. the present unless they were very carefully scrntinired. He was present, on behalf of 'the person charged, by permission, and might be allowed to .put a question or two, but that was all, and the jury might be called upon, on hearing one side of tlte case only, to find a verdict. He (Mr Solomon) desired to impress upon the coroner, and felt sure he would see the justice of it, that whilst it was very necessary—it must be—that the jury should find a verdict as to the cause of death, that he should protect the person charged as far as lay in his power, so that any verdict that might be brouorht in would not prejudice him at the trial for any offence with which he might be charged. He (Mr Solomon) trusted that he was not goinc too far m making this request. In a small town such as this any onesided story—as if a verdict were to be brought in thai death was caused by an operation performed by the accused —must prejudice him in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the persons who would become juror*. He (Mr Solomon) felt sure that His Worship would readily fall in with ■ft is suggestion, ind cons'der it his duty to prevent, as far as possible, the case being prejudiced by reason of the proceedings today. Mr Graham said that lie quite appreciated the reasons which had induced Mr Solomon to make these remarks. Knowing that in such cases the person accused was likely to be put in an unfair position. ]\9 would tell the jury that they were called upon primarily to find out, on behalf of the King, how and in what manner the deceased came to her death, and not connect any person with it unless there was absolutely no doubt in their minds If there was any such doubt in their minds, it would be for them, seeing that the evidence was one-sided, to say that death was caused by some person or persons unknown, or they might confine themselves to saying that death was caused by an illegal operation. Mr Solomon: In order thsft the public at large may see that any verdict that may be brought in is only a one-sided verdict, I will now take no further part in the proceedings. Mr Calvert said that he appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of the relatives.

Margaret Bolton, the first witness called, said : I am the wife of Richard Bolton, and reside with my husband in Maclaggan street. I knew the deceased. I last saw her alive last Wednesday week (the 12th). Sho left our house between half-past four and five in the afternoon. She was then in lier usual state of health. She told mo that she was going to Portobello, to spend a holiday there. Dr Evans said: In answor to a telephone message by Mr Lilburne, of Mornington, I went to that gentleman's house in Brunei street, Mornington, between nine and ten o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, the 19th inst., and there saw the deceased in bed. I found her in a state of collapse. Her temperature was 102deg, and her pulse 120. I asked the patient the cause, and ehe said* sho could not account for the illness at all. Witness then stated the result of his examination of deceased. He prescribed for her, and said ho would see her again next morning. Sho had had a very bad night, complaining a great deal of abdominal pain. Continuing, witness said : The inflammation was much worse, and. in my opinion, ])eritonitis had set in. Her general condition was also worse. She then admitted certain things, which she gave to me in strict confidence. Inspector O'Brien: Sho admitted the truth of what you had suggested to her ?

, Witness: Yes. She told me mat the ■whole trouble hud been brought on by drags. I said that that was ridiculous, and she then admitted that an instrument had been tised, and that it had been used by a chemist in the main 6treet. She named the chemist.

Inspector O'Brien: Tfi this name "well known to you? Mr Solomon pointed out that this evidence would not bo admitted at a trial. The coroner was not bound in any way, but it was within the proper exercise of bis duty to exclude hearsay evidence, which could not be used at a trial.

Inspector O'Brien submitted that every tittle of evidence showing how or by what means the woman came by her death ought to be admitted.

The Coroner thought that they were bound to take all the evidence they could.

Witness, continuing, said she named Mr Hayne, who was carrying on business in Princes street as a chemist. She said the operation took place on the Wednesday evening previous in a back room of Mr Hayne's shop. She did not tell me what occurred after the operation. - I explained to her the seriousness of her condition, and also told her that it was impossible for her to be nursed by her sister. She said that she would' rather go to the hospital than, that her relatives should know the cause of the trouble, and added that if I were asked I should say it was appendicitis. She repeated that she would not give me permission to tell what she had told me, I sent her to the hospital, and at the sister's request I went to see deceased on the Friday. I found that she was much worse. She asked me that afternoon how I thought she was going to do. I said: " Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think you have gob a hope." She then asked me to go and see her sister, and to tell her all about the trouble. She said that her condition was caused bjl a young man who was an engineer on the. Moeraki. John T. lalburne, residing in Mornington, said that he saw deceased at his house on the night of the 18th hist. It would be about nine o'clock She had been away from home for four or five days before that. She was supposed to have 'been spending a holiday at Portobello. She was then in a state of collapse. She had to be put on the sofa, and then put to bed a quarter of an hour afterwards. Witness rang up Dr Evans at once, but he could not come until next day. He advised witness to put hot water to her feet and give her a stimulant. Ho told the doctor that he thought she had caught, cold coming up by the boat. She was very bad all night. Witness had no conversation with her at his house, but he did at the hospital on Friday night. Witness told her that ho had heard what the trouble was. He said that he had forgiven her, that the doctor had told him that she would not recover, that it was her duty to tell the whole truth, and allow him to let the magistrate take her depositions. She consented. She told witness- that she knew she was going to die. He stopped with her aJI nagfit. She died at about eight minutes past three on the Saturday morning. Witness was present when deceased's depositions were taken by Mr Widdowson, S.M. Witness considered that it was his duty to take the stand he had taken. Deceased was -always fairly healthy. She was

not what would be calfed a robust girl, but she had never had any. illness. Dr Roberts said that, with, Dr WiUiamiv he made a post mortem examination of the body on the afterrioo» of- Saturday, the 22nd, at the hospital. He found acute general suppurative peritonitis, gangrenous inflammation, and abscesses. The cause of death was obviously due to septic infection, leading to an abscess, the aruptinre of which produced peritonitis. '±!he septic infection was caused externally. Dr E. JEL Williams said that he assisted Dr Roberts. He agreed with Dr Roberts's evidence, and had nothing to add. Inspector O'Brien: At this stage I propose to ask for a further adjournment. I find, in the absence of a witness whom I think should be examined, we cannot possibly close the inquest to-day^ The Coroner: To what time do you propose to adjourn? The Inspector: Perhaps a few days, to give a little time to discover the witness. Any day towards the end of the week. The Coroner: Say Friday? The Inspector -. That will do well. The inquiry was then adjourned untiJ Friday at 10.50 a.m.