FOURTH TRIAL ABORTIVE

Evening Star, Issue 22575, 17 February 1937, Page 8

FOURTH TRIAL ABORTIVE

ISABEL AVES DISCHARGED

JUDGE’S SIGNIFICANT COMMENT

[Per United Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, February IG. For the fourth time a jury failed to reach an agreement in the case against Isabel Annie Aves, also known as Craike, a married woman, of Hastiugs, who has stood her trial at Napier and throe times at Wellington on seven charges of using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. The fourth trial was concluded in the Supremo Court at Wellington, when it was announced that the Crown did not intend to proceed further. The prisoner was discharged. No evidence was called for the ■ defence, .and the final addresses to the jury occupied more than two hours. The jury retired at 12.50 p.m. and returned at 4.55 p.m. with the announcement that it could not agree. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), addressing the accused, said: “ Not only was there in this case evidence given by five different women alleging that you procured their miscarriages by the use of instruments — two women alleging that they were twice operated upon—but there was evidence which is undisputed and indisputable that during a period of from 18 to 20 months you purchased no fewer than 20 dozen —that is, 240—0 f these instruments, which medical evidence says cannot be imagined in use in the hands of a private person for other than an illegal purpose,! There was also evidence that during that same period of 18 months you received from no fewer than 183 persons in varying sums an aggregate of £2,232 10s, that proof coming, from, your own books. Not only that, but there was evidence that the ground at the back, part of your section was impregnated with hilman fcetal remains, the evidence being that no fewer than 22 foetuses were found.

“ Well, upon that evidence the Crown submitted that a nefarious and criminal business must have been going on in your house ,for a period of 18 months or more. The jury apparently found some difficulty and has not been able to agree upon the question, presumably, whether you were the actual person who committed these offences. “ I do not. know, whether or not that is the precise question on which the jury differed,” His Honour continued, “ but all I can say is that I should recommend you to see that your household in future is riot carried, on in such a.way by anyone that you may be brought before the court again on a charge of this kind, because, if you are, you may not be so fortunate as you are on this occasion.” After the prisoner had left the dock, His Honour said: “ I venture to make those observations because there are various aspects of this case which, in my view, are worthy of the serious attention of those who guide the destiny of this young country.”-