Jury Disagrees

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 109, 9 May 1941, Page 4

Jury Disagrees

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE AGAINST WOMAN The jury engaged in the trial of Julia May Ambury, married, of Wellington, who was charged in the Palmerston North Supreme Court, with manslaughter in connection with the death of a woman, failed to reach an agreement and a new trial has been ordered to take place on Tuesday next. The trial commenced on Wednesday and further evidence was heard yesterday. Dr. T. 11. Pullar, pathologist at the Palmerston North Hospital, stated that the woman died from a septic condition. A young woman whose name was suppressed, told of her visit to Hcpworth, chemist, of Palmerston North, because of anxieties she had about herself. Hepworth promised to get in touch with Bomcone who "would bo able to perform an operation for £l(s. The accused arrived, but witness said she was too nervous for proceedings to go on. Arrangements were then made for her to go to Wellington which she did at a later date. Mrs. Ambury met* her at the railway station and they went to a house where she submitted to tho operation. . Detective G. Hogan, of Wellington, spoke of his visit to accused's home and finding there a catheter and bandage. She volunteered an explanation which was taken down in writing. She said her age was 50. She denied performing illegal operations in Palmerston North and corresponding with Hepworth. Witness said he asked accused again if she was sure Bhe had not received any letters from Hepworth. Her reply had been: 1 ‘You don’t want any letters; you have found the instrument.” Answering Mr. Ongley, Detective Hogan said the eatheter, according to Mrs. Ambury, had been in her homo for many years. Detective O. Power, of Palmerston North, told the Court that when Mrs. Ambury was asked if she would stand in an identification parade, she declined to do so. She had made no reply when Henderson, the husband of the dead woman, had declared she was the person who had been to.his home. Later witness took down a statement from accused, who, on this occasion, recalled that she had been to Palmerston North on January 9 to see Miss X (witness whose name was suppressed), but the question of an operation had not been discussed. Miss X had not seen her in Wellington. Asked again if she had been to the home of Mrs. Hender-

son, her reply had been: “I am not saying anything about that.” This evidence concluded tlie Crown case. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr. Ongley’s address directed attention to what he called gaps in tho evidence and contradictions. Counsel also claimed that there was nothing in Mrs. Henderson’s dying statement t<» connect, accused with an illegal operation. All it said was “some woman." In any case, it would be doubtful if a dying woman would have much interest in or understand what the doctors were asking her for the purposes of the statement. His Honour pointed out that it wni possible some or the evidence was weak, but there- yias other evidence of a stronger nature which could be examined. The killing of unborn children was a very grave matter and touched upon race suicide. A nation which had no children coming along was in grave danger in these days of land hungry people."" - His Honour directed i attention to tho corroboration needed to support tho testimony of witnesses who were more or less accomplices in { the legal sense and declared the case I was quite simple if commonscnse w ere applied to it. It was true that the only direct evidence concerning an (illegal operation was contained in the j dead woman’s statement, but thete was a quick sequence of events ?rora which the jury might be able to draw correct inferences. In discharging the jury, His Honour thanked them for their services and commented that the new trial of a case of simple character was putting tho country to extra expense.