LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9009, 23 March 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Thursday.

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Abortion. —The hearing of the charge against Archibald Dour/la#, of giving noxious medicines to Annie Mary Mclnerney for the purpose of procuring abortion or miscarrriage, which had been partly heard on the previous day, was resumed, Mr. Theo. Cooper appealing for the accused. Elizabeth Porter was recalled, and crossexamined by Mr. Cooper as to certain statements made by her in the lower Court, and which she now denied. Dr. Carolan was also recalled, and re examined by Mr. Williamson. He never had any. pictures similar to those produced in evidence in his possession. Mclnerney never consulted him regarding any ailment. _ Dr. Hooper recognised the bottle of medicine (produced) as a solution of perchloride of iron, and taken as prescribed it was a very unsafe medicine for a pregnant woman, but it was an ordinary dose for some purposes. Mr. J. A. Pond, colonial analyst, deposed to obtaining the phial (produced) from Detective McGrath. He took out about 75 .drops for the purpose of estimating its constituents. He found it to be a solution of pechloride of iron. It was almost in actual accordance with the Pharmacopaiial strength. He found no presence of alkaloid. It was an irritant poison, and if taken in large doses would kill. The contents of the phial would in some cases be sufficient to kill, and '20 drops three times a day would be injurious to a healthy subject, for the continued administration would causa an irritation of the urinary organs. ♦Detective McGrath was recalled, and said that in accused's house he found pictures similar to one ho had received from Mclnerney. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Cooper put in the depositions of the girl Porter, and they were read. He called Dr. Knight*, who examined the prescription given by the accused to the prosecutrix, and stated it was a proper prescription for amenurae, and would be beneficial, not injurious. He did not think the tincture of iron in that dose would have any influence on abortion. In cross-examination witness said if a woman was desirous of preserving her conception there would be a risk in giving this medicine. He did not think the taking of that prescription would do a healthy person any harm. Counsel then addressed the . Court at some length. His Honor summed up the evidence with the greatest care, and the jury, after half-an-hour's deliberation, returned a verdict of " Guilty." Mr. Cooper addressed the Court in mitigation of sentence, and asked His Honor to take into consideration the extreme old age of the prisoner, now 71 years of age, ana the fact that hitherto he had borne an unblemished character. He had testimonials as to the prisoner's character signed by many of the oldest residents in Dunedin, and he asked that he might be dealt with under the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act. His Honor said there was no necessity .for putting in the testimonials, as he had himself known the prisoner for many years. Addressing the prisoner, His Honor said he had been found guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and he did notseehowthe jury could come to any other conclusion. He was extremely sorry to see him in such a position, having known him so long as a man of respectable character, and he could not understand what had led him to commit such an offence, which, with the surrounding circumstances, showed that he must be possessed of very morbid feelings. If he was a younger man he (His Honor) would feel bound to give the full penalty allowed by law, namely, two years' imprisonment with hard labour, but in consideration of his great age and hitherto respectable character, he would make the sentence as light as possible, and he only feared it was too light, namely, six months' imprisonment without hard labour.

This concluded the criminal sittings of the Court.

R.M. COURT.— Thursday. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.]

Judgment for Plaintiffs.—Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases J. A. Beale v. A. Henderson, £88 16s 4d, costs £'2 6s; T. Steadman v. W. Waters, £6 10s Bd, costs 15s; Northern Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. F. Cudby, £12 15s 7d, costs £2 7s ; S. Reynolds v. J. Edye, £4 14s 6d, costs tis ; J. M. McLaehlan v. G. Bishop, £4 lis Id, costs 12s ; Watts Brothers v. G. Taylor, 15s, costs 13s ; J. E. Clam v. W. H. Cooper, £35 18s Id, costs £5 ; A. and G. Brook v. Colonel Rookes, £6 18s lid, costs £1 16s; C. A. Rollersonv. Mrs. H. Morris, £1 2s 4d, costs, £1 2s (id ; C. A. Smith v. T. Carroll, £3 ss, costs 16s 6d ; Hawke and Lincoln v. W. Hogg. £4 4s 7d, costs £1 Is 6d ; C. A. Rollerson v. Saunders, 15s 4d, costs £1 Is (id ; Auckland Gas Co. v. J. Mowbray, £6 10s 9d, costs 15s; J. Davis v. T. A. Turley, 19s 6d, costs lis; James Mason v. J. R. Hurrey, £6 14s, costs £1 17s : North New Zealand Farmers' Cooperative Association v. E. Cameron, £25, costs £4 19s ; C. A. Rollerson v. Mrs. Filmer, £2 13s 9d, costs £1 Is 6d; Seegner, Langguth, and Co. v. S. Coombes, £4 9s, costs £1 Is 6d ; Thomas H. Humphreys v. H. J. Sunderland, £20, costs £1 5s ; O. Mays v. M. W. Cheriton, £2 7s 6d, costs 7s ; O. Mays v. J. Hood, £11 7s 6d, costs £1 Is , Fisher and Co. v. J. Lynch, £1 8s lOd, costs lis; George Ryan and another v. John C. Cooper, £59 16s, costs £8 18s. E. Harvik v. Mrs. Fox.—Claim, £4 6s, for repairs, &c., to buggy. Plaintiff was examined, and for the defence Mrs. Fox contended that she had not authorised the majority of the repairs. Evidence having also been taken for the defence. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £2 Os (id, with costs, 6s. Bull v. Dklanv.—Claim, £11 4s, duo in respect to the carting of a quantity of metal. Mr. Cotter for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. Messrs. Bull (the plaintiff), R. Davis (of the firm of Days Bros., Takapuna), Delaney (the defendant), A. AlisOn, were examined, and judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Trustees of Hunter and Nolan v. J. McColl.— £2 ss, value of drain pipes supplied. Mr. .Theo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. S. Hesketh for the defendant. The defence set up was that the account had already been paid. His Worship gave judgment for the defendant for the full amount of the claim, with costs, £1 2s fid. C. H. Cobbett v. C. A. Harris.— Claim, £26, for medieal attendance. Mr. Cotter appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Clendon, who appeared on behalf of Messrs. Devore and Cooper, the defendant's counsel, applied for an adjournment, as Mr. Theo. Cooper, who was engaged elsewhere, wished to appear, and the case had been called on unexpectedly. A large number of witnesses were in waiting, however, and His Worship decided to hear the plaintiff's case. Dr. Cobbett, the plaintiff, deposed that he had been for some time medically attending defendant's wife, and the present claim was for payment for that attendance. His minimum charge for advice was ss, whilst for ordinary visits he charged 10s Gel, and these amounts had been previously paid by defendant without demur. In May, 1885, defendant instructed him to attend Mrs. Harris. On one occasion witness administered chloroform to defendant's wife, who was under the influence of the drug for almost an hoar ; subsequently Mrs. Harris • suffered from inflammation, an abscess being formed. During all this time plaintiff was regularly in attendance, but he had not charged for all of the visits. Dr. T. H. Lewis deposed to being present when plaintiff administered chloroform to Mrs. Harris, and said he was of opinion that this step was necessary. He considered that plaintiff's charges were reasonable. Charlotte McCarthy, professional nurse, gave evidence as to attending defendant's wife in 1886. Dr. Cobbett was Mrs. Harris' medical attendant, and witness considered that all of his visits were necessary. Drs. Hooper, Lindsay, Macmullen, and Dawson also gave* evidence, and deposed that plaintiffs oharges were reasonable. The Court at this stage adjourned till two o'clock, when Mr. Cooper was in attendance, and applied for an adjournment, as he had not expected that the case would be proceeded with that day, and he was not therefore prepared to proceed with the defence. He was engaged in the Supreme Court when the case was called. The further hearing of the case was therefore adjourned till Monday next, at two p.m.