THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1291, 26 November 1896, Page 29

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. 4. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. THE ABORTION CASE : A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. At the Supreme Court yesterday week (His Honor the Chief Justice presiding) the case against Susan Shortt for procuring abortion in one Hannah Tattersall by the use of an instrument was proceeded with. Mr Bell appeared for the Crown and Mr Wilford for the accused. The prisoner, who is a dark, blackeyed woman of about 40 years of age, pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Hannah Tattersall, Dr. Mackin, and Dr Ewart. After Susan Shortt (daughter of the accused), May Bunting and Wm. Keegan had given evidence, Mr Wilford addressed the jury, the younger witnesses being ordered out of Court. Mr Bell having followed, His Honor summed up, the jury retired at 5 p.m., and, after a short deliberation, brought in a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. ANOTHER CASE. The trial of the woman Mary Ann Sayer, charged with procuring abortion on Eva Smith at Masterton on October 13tb, was commenced at the Supreme Court last Friday afternoon. Mr Wilford appeared on behalf of the accused. Eva Smith, a married woman, deposed that, in company with Mrs Bishop, of Greytown, she went to Mrs Sayer's house and asked her if she would perform an operation on her. Mrs Sayer answered in the affirmative, and the operation was performed accordingly. The miscarriage ensued a fortnight afterwards at Eketahuna. Kate Bishop, a married woman, deposed that she went with Mrs Smith to Mrs Sayer's. She heard Mrs Smith say that she had «£2, and accused answered, " All right; I'll see what I can do." The two then went into the room and were absent about five minutes. The witness then said that in September she went to Mrs Sayer, who performed an operation on her, and a miscarriage followed four days lator. After Dr Butement's evidence had been taken, Miss Cecilia Holmes deposed that in November, 1895, Mrs Sayers came to her home in Masterton to perform an operation on her to procure a miscarriage, but, after she had examined her, her mother would not allow the operation to be performed. Belinda Westbrook, in answer to Mr Wilford, said that Mrs Smith had said she had endeavoured to bring on a miscarriage on herself. After Mr Wilford had addressed the jury and His Honor had summed up, the jury retired at 6 o'clock, but as they were unable to agree, they were locked up for the night. On Saturday morning they were still unable to bring in a verdict, and were discharged. Mrs Sayer will be tried again on Friday next before a new jury. THE PAHIATUA EAR-CROPPING CABE. At the Supreme Court on Monday, before the Chief Justice, Joseph Kenny was charged with wounding Timothy O'Gorman, with intent to maim him and to do grevious bodily harm. A.ccused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr ' Jellicoe, on behalf of Mr Tosswill. The first witness was Timothy O'Gorman, a labouring man, living at Mangataiuoka, who said that on the 9fch September he went to Pahiatua before noon. He had been drinking at several hotels, and left to go home in the evening. He saw Kenny during that day, but did not remember going to his hotel—the Empire. He went some distance along the road —not quite half a mile from Kenny's Hotel—and laid down on the side of the road and went to sleep. He was awakened from the pain of part of his left ear being cut off. He then saw Kenny. Witness did not feel any pain from the right ear. He said to Kenny, " Kenny, you have me killed." He recognised Kenny, who was standing close to him. Kenny did not srjeak, and witness did not se© him with a knife. The blood was flowing from his ears and running down his cheeks. Witness did not get up, but remained on the ground for some time.

To His Honor: He knew the man was Kenny, and recognieed him by his shape. It was not light enough to see his face. Examination continued : Witness then got over the fence and laid down. After some time he returned to Pahiatua. His hat and watch were missing. It was a gold watch. He went as far as the Town Hall, and then back, and went homo, reaching there abovit daylight. That morning Dr Gault attended to him. Ho had a Civil action against Kenny for .£6O. The cause of the action was that Kenny got him to sign cheques, and then never gave him any money. This occurred about eight days before he was injured. On the day the case was heard Kenny said to witness, "If ever I meet you on the Biniutaka, I will do away with you." On the morning the case was heard Kenny told witness that he had sold his hotel and was going away, and remarked that if ever he got hold of George Prebble he would cut his ears off. Prebble was a witness in the civil case witness had against Kenny. Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe : He was not sober when he stopped at Kenny's Hotel at the time he signed the cheques. Kenny was giving him liquor as fast as he could drink it. When he was leaving Kenny's Hotel accused told him if ho did not keep quiet about the matter he would not get a shilling back. _ Thomas Hutchinson, Stipendiary Magistrate at Masterton, deposed to hearing the civil action O'Gorman v. Kenny on August 11th, claim £6O, in which he gave judgment for the full amount claimed with costs. Tho witness then read over the notes of the evidence given in the case.

John Beaufort deposed haviag drawn up

a plan of the scene of the alleged offence. (Plan produced.) The photograph (alsoproduced) gave a fair idea of the place. Dr D. Gault, a duly qualified medical practitioner, practising at Pahiatua, deposed having attended O 'Gorman at 8 o'clock on the morning after the occurrence. The tips of his ears were cut off, and there was blood on his face and clothes. The injury appeared to him to have been done about nine or ten hours previously, as the blood was dried and the cut surface had also dried. He thought a knife had been the instrument used. O'Gorman was sober at that time, bub appealed to have been drinking. To Mr Jellicoe : He appeared to have been drinking heavily on the day previously. Witness could not swear that the injuries had not been inflicted within seven hours of tho time be saw the patient, but he thought a longer time had elapsed. ' Constable Chas. Bowdon gave evidence that he liad seen O'Gorman in bed with his ears cut in Air Walker's house at Mangatainoka, and his head and face all smeared with blood. O'Gorman made a complaint to him, in consequence of which a warrant wa:i issued, and accused was arrested. When witness and Constable Sheary were going to Mangatainoka to see O'Gorman, the latter saw a hat lying to the left of the road, and marks on the ground as if someone had been lying there. There were also what appeared to be bio. d-stains on tie groun.l where the marks were j the was also smeared with blood. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Jellicoe, and the Court adjourned at sis o'clock till next morning.

The case was continued on Tuesday. The hearing of the charge against Joseph Kenny of maiming and wounding Timothy O'Gorman was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The witnesses examined were Mrs Bowden (wife of Constable Bowden), George Flanagan, who deposed that he saw Kenny coming from the direction of Mangatainoka on the evening the outrage was committed, George Grosford, Joseph Eyan and J. Cantle, storekeeper, who deposed to seeing a man lying in a ditch on the Mangatainoka road.

Constable Sheary, stationed at Mangatainoka, corroborated Constable Bowden's evidence as to O'Gorman's condition on the following morning. At the place where the occurrence took place witness found a hat (produced); the ground also had the appearance as if some person had been lying down. James Grosford, settler, swore that he remembered the civil case O'Gorman v. Kenny being heard. He saw Kenny after the case, and Kenny said " that he would give £o for Tim O'Gorman's left lug." Joseph Rompack gave evidence as to O'Gorman's condition the day after the outrage. Miss Wolters, residing at Mangatainoka, deposed that she was at an entertainment in the Town Hall on the 9th September, and when she was going home the next morning O'Gorman passed her in the street. Witness did not think he had a hat on.

Timothy O'Gorman (recalled) identified the hat produced as the one he was wearing when his ears were cut. This closed the case for the Crown. The counsel for the defence decided not to call any witnesses for the defence.

Mr. Gully, in addressing the jury, said they had to decide whether the accused committed the deed or whether he had a hand in it. It would be absurd to consider that O'Gorman inflicted the injuries on himself.

Mr Jellicoe, in his address, said that it had been suggested that this outrage had been committed between 7 and 8 p.m., and that at that time Kenny was seen crossing the Mangatainoka road going towards his hotel. He suggested to the jury that the outrage had been committed between the hours of 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., or later than 2 a.m. Did they think any man with sense would select the evening as the time to commit such an outrage ? Kenny was a publican, and was sure to know that an entertainment was to be held in the Town Hall, and that numbers of people would be on the road leading 1 from Mangatainoka. Counsel suggested that it was demonstrated that the outrage was committed after 2 a.m. and after he left the Town Hall. Miss Wolters had declared in her evidence that she had seen O'Gorman outside the Town Hall, and that then there seemed to be nothing the matter with him, except that he was not sober. The evidence of O'Gorman proved conclusively that Kenny could not have . been implicated in any outrage that had been committed between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 9 o'clock, and at 11 o'clock returned into Court with a verdict of " not guilty," and Kenny was discharged.

At the Supreme Court last week, Lopez S. Wilkes was charged with the theft of various moneys of the Wellington Hospital contributors, amounting to .£lB 14s 6d, while acting in the capacity of secretary and steward of the Wellington Hospital Trustees. The dates of the defalcations ranged from September 11th, 1895, to February 17th, 1896. Mr Gully appeared for the Crown, and Mr Campbell for the accused. After hearing evidence and the addresses of counsel, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. At the Supreme Court last week, John Shepherd was charged with having stolen a number of articles from the steamer Wainui, belonging to the Wellington Woollen Company. The case was fully reported when heard in the Lower Court, and the jury found a verdict of guilty on the charge of stealing one coat. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine months' imprisonment. A nolle prosequi was entered in the second charge against the accused.