SERIOUS CHARGE

Evening Star, Issue 20129, 20 March 1929, Page 5

SERIOUS CHARGE

YMJBfi WOHAH BEFORE COVET eewnTTHi ran trial A young woman, named Myrtle Eliza Duncan, appeared in the Police Court this morning before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., on a charge that she permitted, on or about October 20, 1928, an instrument to be used on her with the attempt to procure a miscarriage. The accused, who was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon, pleaded not guilty. Dr W. H. Borrie stated that on October 23 he was called to Mrs Duncan’s house in George street, between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. There he saw the accused in bed. The girl told him that she was easier, but that she had had severe pains. Witness examined the girl, and her condition was consistent with her having had a miscarriage, which must have happened just before witness got there.

Jane Helen Duncan, widow, residing at 090 George street, said that the accused, who was her daughter, was nineteen years of age. Some six or seven months ago a woman called at her home and saw her daughter. They were alone for a time. Witness did not know' who the woman was. Not until about a month after the visit did her daughter become ill. When the woman came to the house witness asked her to examine her daughter. Detective-sergeant Nuttall said that on February 26, in company with Police Matron Copple, he questioned the accused with reference to an illegal operation, alleged to have been performed on her by a Mrs Clark. The accused denied that any such operation had taken place, and witness then told her that he had received information that it had taken place. The accused admitted that a Mrs Clark had performed an illegal operation on her, and that it had been carried out in the front room of the accused’s house. The accused subsequently made a statement, which witness handed in. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness stated that lie objected to the suggestion that any third degree methods were employed while the accused was being interrogated. Witness did not arrest her because he simply had to report the facts to his superiors, and curry out their instructions. There was no question of incriminating the accused, and no suggestion of prosecution or anything else was held out to the girl. She was simply asked to toll the truth. Witness did not hold out any threats or warn her that she need not answer any questions that might incriminate her. No statement was made in the presence of wdtness that, if the girl did not tell him about what Mrs Clark did, Mrs Clark would blame Mrs Duncan. It was quite true that between the time of the three interviews and the launching of the present prosecution that the accused was used as a witness against Mrs Clark. Nothing was said to the girl about getting an indemnity against prosecution. The accused ivas Committed to the Supreme Court for trial. A surety of £SU was fixed, the mother’s bail to be accepted.