SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8148, 20 April 1887, Page 3 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.

THE RUSSELL CASES. Wednesday, April 13. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) UNLAWFUL USE, &C. Mary Bowern pleaded “ Guilty ” to the indictment. His Honor deferred passing sentence. Mr Joynt, who appeared for Dr Russell, asked that the case of Annie Connolly might bs taken next, so that Mrs Bowern could not appear as a witness until the sentence of the Court had been passed on her. Otherwise Mrs Bowern might be induced to give evidence unfairly against Dr Russell in order to obtain a mitigation of punishment. His Honor thought the other side might be more anxious than Mr Joynt’s client as to the nature of Mrs Bowern’s evidence. Mr Joynt wished her to go into the wit-ness-box free from any inducement to be biassed. His Honor thought Mr Joynt would have an admirable topic to go to the jury with. The Crown also might desire to have any pressure removed in order that Mrs Bowern might be a good witness. Mr Martin, who appeared for the Crown, said he had no objection to the course suggested by Mr Joynt. Mr Joynt here consulted Dr Russell, who said he had no choice in the matter. Mr Martin would then take the first case (the Bowern case) against Dr Russell alone. Dr Charles James Russell pleaded “ Not Guilty.” His Honor ordered all boys and women to leave the Court. • Mr Martin opened for the Crown. In doing so he admitted that Mrs Bowern was an accomplice whose evidence might be looked upon with suspicion, but there would be corroborative evidence, and especially strong would be the evidence of the police as to Dr Russell’s conduct when arrested. At the request of Mr Joynt, the witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mary Bowern, wife of Joseph Bowern, gave evidence, principally a repetition of her former evidence, and was somewhat hysterical at times during the examination. Cross-examined : Dr Russell said he could do nothing for me, the last time. I don’t remember being very angry and excited. 1 said nothing about going to the police. I don’t remember saying I would get Dr Russellinto trouble. I won’t swear that I did not ; but lam telling the truth. In January, 1886.1 had been ill for some time. I think I told Dr Russell that I felt very ill. I might have said I had had headaches, and suffered from pains in my back, &o. Ido suffer always from them. I don’t think I told him that my body and limbs were swollen. 1 don’t remember saying that I had never before felt in the same way. He told me I had probably either a dropsical tendency or a tumour. Re-examined : I made a statement to the police after my arrest. Constable Flewellyn : Received from Mra Bowern the instrument produced. Detective Maurice O’Connor : Arrested Dr Russell on Jan. 11. Detective Neil was with witness. Went to the doctor’s house. Met him at the door. Told him the charge. He asked permission to go upstairs, and called to his sister-in-law, He said to his sister -in - law, “ I have got into trouble.” She said, “ What is the matter?” He said," They charge me with doing what is not right to a woman, and I have only done my duty.” He then said to witness, “ I don’t know what to say to you. Is Mrs Bowern arrested ?” Witness said “ Yes, she was arrested last night.” He said, “ What did she say ? ” Witness said, “ She has told all about it.” He said, “ She has turned Queen’s evidence, then ? ” He said that he had told Mrs Bowern he had received an anonymous letter cautioning him to have nothing to do with Mrs Bowern; that he had advised her to go up country. He said he had believed the previous case was one of simple necessity, and did not know whether he was right or wrong in doing as he had done. A little later the doctor said he wanted to speak to his sister-in-law. He went into another room. After a little while witness followed him. He came back into the passage. Witness saw him standing near some drawers, and shortly afterwards heard the sister scream out, "You must not do that.” Looked and saw the doctor with a bottle held to his mouth. The sister-in-law tried to get at it, but was not tall enough. Witness took the bottle from Dr Russell, and called Detective Neil. Said to Dr Russell: “ You must come at once.” There was no cork in the bottle, which contained some liquid, A few drops were running down his chin. The doctor caught hold of the jambs of the bedroom door, and said, “ You are too late now. I have done it. I have poisoned myself. You must let me die in my own house.” Released his hands and pushed him along the passage to the head of the stairs. He then got hold of the jamb of his office door. Had some difficulty in getting him away, and witness and Neil pushed him into the office, where he fell on his face ; then handcuffed him and carried him down stairs. Sent for a cab, and conveyed him to the Hospital, calling at the policestation on the way. He kicked and struggled, and tried to kick witness down stairs before leaving the house. In the cab he said he had poisoned himself. At the Hospital he said he had taken a teaspoonful of strychnine before taking what was in the bottle. The bottle is labelled »• Tincture of aconite.” He said that he must have a wonderful constitution not to be killed by the poison, and he could only account for this from the fact that he had just taken his breakfast. He gave witness a scrap of paper, and told witness to give it unopened to his The paper produced was the same. It said, “I am betrayed for doing the best I could to save two families. Telegraph to Louie not to come. Pay all debts. There is quite enough, and a little for Louie and Eva. Trias them for me. I cannot stand this and must die, God’s mercy on my soul. Yours, good bye.—C. J. Russell, M.D.” At prisoner’s house witness found a (This was the anonymous “ warning from one in blue.” Took possession of prisoners books (produced). Found an entry about Mrs Bowern, dated Dec. 30, 1885. (The witness repeated his previous evidence as to entries in the books.)

Cross-examined ; Dr Russell, when X told him the charge, put his hand to his heart, and seemed very troubled. He resisted a good deal, and was much excited. I told • him Mrs Bowern had made a long statement. I swear that the conversation I have stated took place. We used no more vio- | lence than was necessary. I don’t think we could have managed with less. There were no blows struck. I did not kneel on ! him. I lay on him with my side. Neill took the handcuffs out of my pocket. Dr Russell is a powerful man. (At this stage. Mr Joynt informed the Court that Mr Russell appeared with him ) Mary Phillips, nurse at the Christchurch Hospital; Dr Russell was sick after hi; admission. Took charge of the vomit, which she gave to Mr Hobden. Henry Hobden, dispenser at the Hospital : Received from the last witness a vessel containing vomit. Put it info a bottle, which he handed to Detective O’Connor. Professor Bickerton Received two bottles from Detective O’Connor. One marked “aconite” contained aconite, a poison. Analysed it and the contents of the other bottle —the vomit. It contained strychnine in a large quantity, and aconite. Cross-examined: I could get the wellknown test out of a small drop. It was the colour test. It gave a blue colour, passing to pink and violet, i used sulphuric acid and bichromate of potassa. I did not make a quantitative analysis. I think there must have been enough to destroy life. A good breakfast taken before might have affected the action. It is just possible that the aconite neutralised the strychnine. They are both vegetable poisons. One has a numbing effect and the other a spasmodic effect on the nerves, tetanus, &c. Inspector Pender: Recollected Dr Russell being brought to the gate at the police station. Dr Russell called witness, and said, “ Oh, Pender, I can’t stand this disgrace. I have taken aconite, and am dying.” Sent him to the hospital. Next day prisoner sent for witness, and spoke about some things he wished to get. Was about leaving when prisoner said “ Don’t press this thing too hard. You know I am a married man with a family.” Witness said the facts would have to come out. Prisoner said there were two ways of doing it. Witness said he had to do his duty. Cross-examined: Prisoner appeared to be very excited at the Dep6t. ffhe men were holding him. At the Hospital next day he looked weak. I am no judge of his condition. Jessie Wylie, a single girl living at Kaiapoi: Knew Mrs Bowern. Had seen Dr Russell. Went to his house with Mrs Bowern in January, 1886. Dr Russell said he would doit, and she was to call again. Witness went again within a week. All three went upstairs to a bedroom. (The witness repeated her previous testimony.) Cross-examined; I have not attended confinements. Dr Russell did not suggest that I should leave the room, Mrs Bowern did not seem ill. She was very stout altogether. I had known Mrs Bowern a long time. I stopped at her house once or twice, a week or a fortnight at a time, as a friend. I was led to suppose that she and Dr Russell had had a previous conversation. Isabella Wilson, sister of Mrs Bowern: In 1886 took a letter from Mrs Bowern to Dr Russell. Took only one letter. He gave witness a letter back. Gave this to Mrs Bowern. Elizabeth North, wife of William North : Recollected Mra Bowern showing a letter. Read it. It was to this effect: “ Dear Mrs Bowern, —I am sorry you are in trouble again. I cannot help you. My advice is for you to clear out of Christchurch. It was signed with some initials, and ‘ Russell.’ ” Cross-examined : I did not know the handwriting. Saw no other writing on the paper. Dr Fitzgerald Wcstenra, House Surgeon at the Hospital, gave corroborative evidence. In cross-examination admitted that the instrument produced could be used in legitimate surgery in cases of tumours, which might sometimes assume the appearance described by Mra Bowern, produce the symptoms deposed to by her, and take the appearance of dropsy. This was the case for the Crown. Mr Joynt would call no evidence. He submitted that there was no evidence to support the charge of unlawful use. His. Honor thought there was abundant evidence to go to the jury. Mr Martin declined to sum up to the j iry. Mr Joynt addressed the jury. His Honor summed up. The jury retired, and after an absence of fifty-three minutes returned with a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor deferred passing sentence. The Court, at 5.25 p.m., adjourned till 10 a.m on the following day. Thursday, April 14. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) UNLAWFULLY USING, &C. Charles James Russell, Mary Bowern, and Isabella Wilson had on April 14, pleaded “ Not Guilty” to the indictment in Annie C mnolly’s case, in the month of January. Mr Joynt, who with Mr Russell appeared for Russell, announced that his client withdrew his former plea, and now pleaded “ Guilty.” Mr J. C. Martin conducted the prosecution. Mr Stringer appeared for Bowern and Wilson. The following witnesses were examined for the Crown ; Elizabeth North, Mary Lynch, Jessie Wylie, Elizabeth Perrin, Annie Connolly, Constable Flewellyn, Dr Westenra, and Maurice O’Connor. Mr Stringer, who called no evidence, addressed the jury. His Honor summed up, in the course _ of his address advising the jury that with regard to Isabella Wilson there was hardly sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. His Honor then read the principal portions of the evidence, commenting on it from time to time. The jury retired, and after an absence of twenty minutes returned with a verdict of “ Guilty ” against Mary Bowern, and “ Not Guilty” against Isabella Wilson. Mr Martin said he did not propose to lead any evidence against Russell in the case of Kate Fisher. The jury therefore formally acquitted him on that indictment. Inspector Pender said that the police had nothing to say against Dr Russell, whose books, however, showed that there were several similar cases against him. He (Mr Pender) was afraid that the crime of which he (Dr Russell) had been convicted was too common. His Honor discharged Miss Wilson. Inspector Pender said that Mrs Bowern and her sister had been well brought up. Mrs Bowern and her husband had quarrelled and separated The general report was that the husband was more to blame than the wife. She had not been leading a disreputable life, but had been living with a young fellow who had since left the country. Dr Russell, when " called upon,” said he would like to make one or two slight explanations, and then a word a two on his own behalf. With regard to the operation, fifty years ago it was the custom to allow a woman to go to death’s door before operating. Recent authorities counselled early action. He had acted for the good of the patient. His Honor said this was inconsistent with the plea of guilty. Dr Russell pleaded for mercy, on account of his wife and child. On the first day of this year he had a comfortable home, and now he had nothing. He had injured his spine, and was unable to do work. He had

lost his diplomas and everything. His wife and daughter had no one to look to. Already he had suffered ninety-six Jays of excruciating agony. He was fifty-six years of age* and trusted that his Honor would be as merciful to him as possible. Mrs Bowern said nothing when called upon. the sentences. His Honor said he could not accept _ Dr Russell’s explanation, as any exoneration. He had no doubt, f rom the statementsmide by Russell as to the honour of many families being concerned, that he had practised the offence very frequently, and had thus held out to young people the strongest temptation to immorality. The Parliament of this country had branded the offence as a most infamous one. Prisoner had been wrong in saying that he was liable to only ten years, for the punishment for each offence of the kind was penal servitude for life. The commission of such offences was a standing menace to the morality of society. Such matters must be put down with a high band. A few months of seclusion could not be a sufficient punishment to the offender, or a sufficient warning to the public. The profession who gave, and all those who accepted, such unlawful services must receive a salutary warning. The prisoner had systematically extorted large gains from tUose who employed him, he would not call them his victims. The sentence of the Court would be seven years| penal servitude, concurrent in both the indictments. With regard to Mary Bowern, the ease was different. In her own case she had pleaded “ Guilty,” and it was quite clear that she knew what she was about. As a married woman, left by her husband, she had been open to great temptation. Bhe had suffered greatly, no doubt. While Dr Russell had been tempted by the hope of gain, she had been overcome by a fear of shame. Hers was not an ordinary kind of case, for after the first transaction she had had others, and actually threatened Dr Russell for refusing to comply with her wishes. Not for the purpose of punishment so much as for a warning to other women she would be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. This finished the criminal sittings.