BETTLE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 February 1945, Page 2

BETTLE CASE

ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATIONS EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS : ■ CHRISTCHURCH, February 19. Eight of the 26 witnesses for the Crown were heard to-day when the trial, was commenced of George William Bettie, a chemist aged 56, who appeared on four charges of unlawfully using an instrument or other means with intent to procure the miscarriage of women. The first charge concerned Hazel Rosetta Collins, who, according to the evidence, died in the Timaru Public Hospital on January 5, and the date of the alleged offence was December 12, 1944. The dates in the other charges, which concerned three other women, were August 31, November 23, and December 18 of last year. The case is being heard before Mr. Justice North croft and a jury. j Mr. A. T. Donnelly, with him Mr. : A. W. Broym, conducted the case for the Crown.' Mr. L. P. Leary, of Auckland, with him Mr. A. H. Ca.vell, appeared for Bettie. I After an adjournment to enable the ’jurors to make arrangements to stay , away from their homes during the .course of the trial, the hearing was resumed, all witnesses being ordered from the Court.

Opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Donnelly said that the accused was a well-known chemist, who had carried on business in Colombo Street for many years. He was a consulting chemist who advertised his business in the newspapers and elsewhere, and saw his patients as a doctor did. The case for the Crown was that in addition to his ordinary business the accused had an abortion department to which women came, sometimes from a long distance. The business system and methods of the accused seemed much the same in all cases. The women came in the first instance to Bettie either by recommendation or as the result of his advertisements. Generally it seemed to be quite well known' that the accused had this department of his business. He first had one or more short interviews, and then made an appointment for the operation. The women returned and the operation was performed. Mr Donnelly said that provision was made in some cases for post-op-erative treatment. The women were sent to one of three houses in Addington, where they were looked after until they had miscarriages. Bettie’s standard fee for the . operation was £5O, although in one case the amount was £35. j Sometimes Bettie took the women *out to the houses in Addington in his own car. The business was a large one, for the three women apparently received £3O a month each, and hacl attended to 18 cases in the last tnree months. It was evident that accused was carryino, on business in a large way, charging high fees, and sending the women to these houses until they recovered.

Mr. Donnelly added that in these cases the men and women were accomplices and had all committed offences for which they could have been prosecuted; but they would not be prosecuted, because they had-giv-en evidence for the police. It was unsafe to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices, but in this case there was ample corroborative evidence if the jury chose to accept it. The police in an attempt to suppress this sort of offence had to use the evidence of the people concerned, else there would never be a prosecution,’ and people like the accused would be able to extend their business and carry on, and would never be touched. Sometimes the view was taken that people like the accused were entitled to some sympathetic consideration, because they helped people in trouble. Accused was not under any pressure of necessity, for he had a big suite of offices and a good business. If the evidence for the Crown was accepted, this abortion department was not established to help women in their predicament, but to get the good money that was in it at the high price charged. The charge of £5O was high partly because the accused took full advantage of the desperate plight of these women, and partly against the risk of such a thing as was happening to him today. The women who looked after the girls would say that 18 had passed through ' their hands in three months. This meant that the accused hacl collected the best part of £lOOO, less the sums paid to the nurses. Therefore, the accused was taking on an average yearly basis £4OOO gross, for it was fair to infer that there were other cases which did not go through the women’s hands. Most of the money was in notes, and the jury could take it that the money had not paid income tax or national and social security taxes. CHEQUE FOR £5O. Arthur John Palmer, farmer, of Rangitata, gave evidence on the lines of that in the lower Court regarding his association with Hazel Collins anti his acceptance of responsibility for her pregnant condition. He described three visits to Bettie’s premises in company with Hazel Collins and her mother, and said he had paid Bettie with a cheque for £5O. He identified the cheque. To Mr. Leary, witness said that Miss Collins died on January 5. He was very worried and upset by her death, but he did not go immediately to the police. They came to him. The police did not tell him they knew all the details of Hazel Collins’s de.ath, and did not tell him they had information that he was the father of her child.

“They asked me if I knew her,” added witness. Mr. Leary: I suggest to you that the police came to discover your association with Miss Collins.—No. I take it the police came to get information where she had been. *They put it to you they knew she had been to Mr. Bettie? —Yes. You were not very anxious to assist them? —They told me that if I helped them they would help me. I suppose they reminded you that you were guilty of a criminal act in taking Miss Collins up to Christchurch? —No. In what respect were they going to help you?—-I thought it was the fairest way. You were invited to make a written statement including Mr. Bettie in it?_Yes, I think Mr. Bettie’s name was in the statement. I’m not sure. Were they satisfied with the statement you made? —They never said anything about it. You have not been prosecuted as a party or received any summons except to attend as a witness? —That’s a IL , , - You do not anticipate being prosecuted? —I’ve never thought about it much.

Are you aware that if Mr. Bettie is convicted as a principal that you can be convicted as a party to this offence? —I don’t know. I ask you again in what respect were the police going to help you?— That I don’t know. Witness was then cross-examined regarding hfs first visit to Bettie’s premises, and his statement that accused said he brought about abortion, but they could please themselves. “I suggest that he advised you and Miss Collins to go away and get married,” said Mr. Leary to witness. Is that true? Witness: No, I don’t think so. Was marriage mentioned?—l believe it was mentioned. I suggest you shook hands all round and he wished you luck.—No,

I believe he said why not get married or what about getting married. That was all that was said. Vernon Choat, pastrycook, said he knew Bettie. He identified a cheque signed Palmer Brothers as one paid into his bank account on December 18. It was handed to him in an envelope by a'man named Khoun, who was a friend of his, and of Bettie. The money was on account for what Bettie owed witness. Alice May Collins, widow, of Temuka, gave evidence of accompanying her daughter and Palmer to Bettie's premises. In her evidence, which was on the lines of that in the lower Court, she said that she and her daughter were driven to No. 1 Clarence Road by Bettie. Her daughter, remained there one night, and later as the result of a conversation with a Mrs. Leeson and a Mrs Higgins, she took her back to Temuka and called in a doctor. Pauline May Leeson, a married woman, said she lived with her husband and child at No. 1 Clarence Road, which was a flat. A young woman whom she knew as Hazel came there iri December to have a miscarriage. Bettie had told her to expect a young woman that afternoon. Certain pijls and capsules were identified by the witness, who said they were to help a miscarriage, and to prevent blood poisoning. She said, she had given some of these to the young woman Hazel, and had received instruction in their use from Mrs. Higgins and Bettie. Witness said that she had had other girls in her house. She had known Bettie for two or three months. He had been introduced to her by Mrs. Higgins. The general gist of the conversation then was that her place would be suitable to bring girls to have miscarriages. Approximately two girls a week came to the house and all had miscarriages there. Witness kept no record of the names of the girls or the money she received. Cross-examined by Mr. Leary, witness said her husband knew that the girls were at the house for miscarriage. When the police arrived to search her house' Detective-Sergednt Brady told her he knew that she had been running a house for the reception of girls, and that Bettie was mixed up in it. Mr. Leary: Were you reluctant to tell him about it or did you tell him straight away? Witness: I had a think about it and I told him. Did he tell you that it would be better for you if you made a statement? —Yes.

Did he remind you that keeping this house was an offence against the law,? —Yes. f Did he tell you that if you made a statement you would not be procppiifprl? In that statement was Mr. Bettie’s connection with your house included? —Yes.

Would you have made that statement if you had not received that promise?—Yes. Why? Because you were frightened? —No. I would sooner tell the truth than tell lies. WITNESS RECALLED. After the adjournment, Mr. Donnelly asked for permission to recall the witness Choat. He said that the witness had mentioned for the first time the person from whom he had received the envelope containing the cheque, and the Crown desired to ask who this person was and where he was to be found. Choat said that the cheque had been given to him by a Mr. Walter David Khouri, who was in Wellington at the moment. He had been in the North Island for two or three weeks, and was'staying at the Royal Oak Hotel. Mr. Leary: You have told us that this debt was owing to you, and that you are a pastrycook. Witness: Yes. Mr. Leary: Was this cheque in payment of a debt for pastry? Witness: Not for pastry cooking. Pearl Wilhelmina Higgins, a married woman, said she was at Mrs. Leeson’s house on December 12 when two women arrived. She could not remember anyone coming with them. Witness had known Bettie personally for six months and did not see him when the women arrived. The womhanded her £l5 in an envelope which was not addressed. She gave Mrs. Leeson £5, kept £5, and gave £5 to another woman whose name she would not divulge because she had nothing to do with the case. Asked why she received the £5, witness said she was helping Mrs. Leeson with the housework. She did not know where the money had come from. On other occasions she had received money, but never more than £5. She had not the remotest idea how many payments she had received, but there would be more than three over a period of two months. There had been other girls in the house, but she could not remember how many. She had never assisted with the-removal of the results of m iQPfiwinG'pQ To Mr. & Leary witness said she did not instruct Mrs. Leeson in the use of certain drugs found in Mrs. Leeson’s house. Mr. Leary: Did you make a. voluntary statement to the police? Witness: I wouldn’t call it voluntary. I wasn’t treated very nicely by the police. I was threatened with all sorts of things, aiding and abetting, and perjury if I didn’t come clean. Did they discuss with you who had been doing the alleged illegal operations? —Yes. ' , «xr I think you told the detectives You can pin it on me. I did it”? —That is perfectly true. After the hearing of medical evidence the Court was adjourned until 10 o’clock to-morrow.