THE CHRISTCHURCH ABORTION CASE.

New Zealand Mail, 22 April 1887, Page 23

THE CHRISTCHURCH ABORTION CASE.

PASSING SENTENCES. (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchurch, April 14. The cases against Mrs Bowern, Isabella Wilson and Dr Russell were resumed this morning at the Supreme Court, which was again crowded. Mr Joynt, for Dr Russell, said the latter withdrew his former plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty in the case of Annie Connolly. Mr Stringer appeared for the woman, who had pleaded not guilty. Mr Martin, for the Crown, called Elizabeth. North, who deposed to certain statements made to her by Mrs Bowern inreference to the girl Annie Connolly. Mrs Bo wern said what was done to the girl nearly killed her, but she had to save her brother. Mary Lynch, servant at Mrs Bowerh’s last Christmas twelve months, also deposed to statements 4 made in her presence relating to an operation. Annie Connolly deposed that at she refused to go to Dr' Russell. Robert Wilson then said if she did not he would have to go to America. Witness consented to go afterward. Mrs Bowern, Isabella Wih on, and Robert Wilson arranged to fetch her when she was to go. Witness went with Miss Wilson in January, 1886, to Dr Russell’s house, where a certain operation was performed, which witness described. The remainder of the evidence for the Crown was merely corroborative. Mr Stringer called no witnesses, but addressed the jury, contending that the evidence was unsatisfactory. He briefly reviewed the testimony of the various witnesses. In summing up, Judge Johnston advised the jury that there was hardly sufficient evidence to convict Isabella Wilson. The jury, after twenty minutes' retirement, found Mre Bowern guilty, and Isabella Wilson not guilty. Mr Martin did not offer evidence in the case against Russell of procuration of Kate Fisher. In reply to Judge Johnston, Inspector Pender said Dr Russell had never been convicted before, bat he was bonnd to say that there was talk that he had to do with other cases of a similar kind. Nothing was known against Bowern, whose family were respectable. In reply to the usual question, Dr Russell said that 50 years ago it was the custom of the medical profession to allow a woman to come near death’s door hefore taking any action, Now, however, Barns "and other eminent writers laid down that action should be taken earlier. This was all he had done. In the present cases he had acted for the benefit of others and not for himself. He would be thankful to his Honor to consider his case as mercifully as possible. He had suffered beyond the power of language to describe since his arrest. He had lived six years in Christchurch, had worked hard, and had now lost everything, his diplomas included. He was 56 years of age, his wife and family were left destitute, and he could not Bee what they were going to do as long as he remained in confinement. Mrs Bowern had nothing to say. Mr Justice Johnston said that he could not accept Russell’s statement that he had acted merely according to the dictates of modem science to save life. There was no dcubt that he had made a practice of performing such operations, and thus placing before young people great inducement to sexual immorality. Russell i had rendered himself liable to penal servitude for life, and though he would not sentence him to that extreme penalty, he j must pass such a sentence as would j be a warning to members of his profession and the rest of the com*

munity. The sentence would bo penal servitude for seven years on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. Mrs Bowern’s case was different. She baa been terrified by the fear of shame, and not by desire of gain, snch as was the case with Russell. Still, her case could not be treated as he might have done, had she been a young girl who had yielded to temptation once. For the sake of deterring others who might be tempted to commit a similar crime, as much as for the sake of punishing her, he must inflict a substantial sentence. She would be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for twelve months.