SERIOUS CHARGES

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11435, 3 February 1923, Page 5

SERIOUS CHARGES

DANIEL COOPER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL HOW THE LETTERS WERE FOUND DEATH OF GIRL IN HOSPITAL APPEAL TO COOPER FOR HELP After hearing evidence which occupied three days, Mr E. Page, S.M., last night committed Daniel Richard Cooper to stand his trial at the Supreme Court on certain grave charges. The Supreme Court session opens next week. Seven distinct charges are laid against Cooper of attempting to procure miscarriage, two of attempting to supply women with certain noxious things for the same purpose, and one of doing a certain act in order to achieve the same result. There were again several painful interludes with witnesses, one of whom nearly swooned, and caused a brief adjournment of the court. Cooper preserved his air of self-possession, sitting with his counsel (Mr C. A. L. Treadwell) in the body of the court. He maintained a quiet interest in the proceedings, and at times appeared to manifest considerable interest in the replies evoked from witnesses by, SeniorDetective Lewis, who, with Inspector Mcllveney, appeared on behalf of the police. Evidence was called regarding the death of a young girl some weeks ago at the Wellington Hospital. The police produced a lettercard written by the girl asking the accused for assistance. It was found on his premises when they were raided by the police. The production of this evidence seemed to occasion ' Cooper not a little surprise. The latter part of the hearing was occupied with the evidence of police officers, which was on more or less formal lines. A statement signed by tbe accused was produced; also certain evidence regarding remarks by the accused when formally charged. One charge he cliaracterieed as “Ridiculous!” The accused left th© court accompanied by two police officers!

THIRD DAY’S HEARING DEALINGS WITH AGCUSED FORMER EMPLOYEE’S EVIDENCE The first witness was a middle-aged married woman, who first went to the accused for treatment in August, 1922, in connection with her head. An examination of her person later took place in the bedroom of her own house. She was again examined with an instrument at her home. She said she had caljed at his place in order to pay some money. She had visited his office with her sister, who incidentally, bad also received treatment. She had paid about £7 for treatment. Witness said the accused called at her place on several occasions after the examinations took place. She was by no means certain as to dates, hut believed that the last visit took place either in October or November of last year. The witness, replying to Mr Treadwell, stated that she had lived near Khandallah for the past seven years. She. was- 47 years of age, had been married eight years, and her only child was six years of age. HANDWRITING IDENTIFIED. ' The next witness was a young unnarried woman residing in Elizabeth street, who had .been in the employ tf tbe accused, commencing in 1919, and ending nine months ago. She was engaged as a canvasser for an inhaler and certain ointments. Senior-Detective Lewis: Could you identify books and other exhibits found in Cooper’s office?—Yes, I think I could. Have you ever seen Cooper writing? —Yes. Did you notice anything peculiar about his spelling?—Yes, I do not think he spelt very correctly. Can you recognise his handwriting? ■—Yes, I think I can. Certain entries in documents obtained by the police from accused’s office were recognised by the witness, some being in her own handwriting, and others in Cooper’s. Some of the entries-could not be Identified. A VISIT TO TIMARU. Evidence was also given by the husband of a witness who was called on Thursday. He had formerly resided at Albury, near Timaru, also at Auckland. He said he first became acquainted with accused towards the end of 1921, when he met him by appointment with his wife on the railway station at Timaru! Cooper was then passing through on his way to Wellington. His wife desired to be examined. Cooper had been recommended to her. She told hhn that she was shortly coming up to Wellington to her sister’s wedding. The magistrate: What I want to get at is what you told him at the railway station. The witness did not reply. Senior-Detective Lewis: Did you see Cooper again?—Yes, he came to see me when fie went to Timaru later. Did you see any examination take place ?—No. Did he tell you anything about your wife?—Yes; he said «he was in a very bad way. There was a misplacement. The accused informed him that the moat natural way for this to be corrected was for his wife to go through with her confinement. The witness admitted writing certain letters to the accused.

The magistrate noted counsel’* objection concerning putting these letters in ae evidence. Accused had promised to send the witness certain testimonials, and eventually did so. Witneee considered him to be a specialist in certain courses of treatment. WITNESS ALMOST SWOONS. At this stage the witness almost swooned, and assistance had to be given by the court orderly. The magistrate adjourned the proceedings while the witness recovered. When the court resumed, the witness said they had been doing their best tu get rid of the child. They came to Wellington, however, where it was horn. “If she could not get rid of it in Wellington, we decided that she would have to go into a home.” When his wife returned from Wellington they made up their minds to let matters take their natural course. COUNSEL’S PROTEST. Senior-Detective Lewis mentioned the fact that the wife of this witness had approached him, desiring to add to her evidence, and asked whether the magi* tratc would consider the request, and grant the necessary permission.

A strong protest against such procedure was made by Mr Treadwell, who regretted exceedingly that witnesses “iiould change their minds concerning tueir evidence after they had left the precincts of the court. He sincerely

hoped that the application would not be granted. There were much stronger reasons now,, he contended, why this witness should not give evidence. Presumably she had been with her husband the previous night, and also she might have been in contact with dozens of other people. The method indicated was quite wrong in procedure. The magistrate: I will take time to consider the matter. INTRODUCED BY WIDOW. A widow of middle age, residing in Wellington, was then called. She first became acquainted with the accused about five years ago, when he called at her house canvassing. He was.trying to sell some of his remedies. He also made the suggestion that there might be remedies for women’s troubles, but she did not care to discuss the matter. The witness was then friendly with a certain young woman, whom she believed was then living in Mulgrave street. She was a frequent visitor to the witness, and had also stayed with her at times.

Witness stated, in reply to a question, that a certain man had boarded at her house for. the past ten years, and that he and the accused knew each other. The girl was not known to Cooper until the witness introduced them. She had told the witness something that induced her to introduce her to Cooper. The senior-detective: JWhy did you do that?—Because I thought he could help her. What happened?—After I introduced them the matter dropped, as far as I was concerned. SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY.

Did you subsequently see Cooper at your house?—Yes, once. Did he tell you why he called ? Yes, he said he called to see the girl. She added that Cooper said: ‘“Nothing can be done.” At this time Cooper had an office in Wellington, where she called to see him. Witness related a conversation there in the presenoe of two others, when Cooper said he thought be might be able to help the girl, but he first of all must have a letter from the witness taking all responsibility. A DICTATED LETTER. “He would make no promise,” she added; “he said he always got such letters in case of any trouble. This started a long conversation. I was not willing to give any letter, as I did not see why I should. . . . Eventually he dictated a letter, and I wrote it.” This letter, produced by the police, was identified by the witness. “FOR GOD’S SAKE, COME!” “Dear Mr Cooper. I have a girl ■friend ,” read the senior-detective, when the witness objected to the letter being quoted. She declared that at the time she said there was no truth in it. The magistrate remarked that he had read the letter. The letter was signed by the witness ns follows:—“I have a girl friend stopping with me who has got herself into trouble, and I have been doing my best to get her out of it, and have made a mess of it. For God’s sake, come and give me a hand. I don’t want to call in a doctor. Come at once.” « The witness added that she had strongly protested against this letter, as it was untrue. They discussed the matter for two hours. NOTHING COULD BE DONE.

Witness said that Cooper later told the girl that he would <3o nothing for her. She would have to have her child in tbe ordinary way. Reverting to the letter, the accused had said he always got a letter from a third party covering him in case of any trouble. EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED. At this stage Mr E. Page, S.M., intimated that he would not allow the before-mentioned witness to add to her evidence. Such an application could be made to another court. Ho had come to the conclusion that she could not be recalled by the present court. He would have the application noted on the depositions. His' duty was to see if there was a case to go forward for trial. COOPER’S EXCUSES. The next witness, another young married woman, declared she was acquainted with the last witness and the accused. She had been in the habit of visiting the house of the last witness. “He was introduced to me for tho purpflWo iof doing loertain tbangs," said The witness, -who began to weep. The purpose to which ' she referred meant an operation to procure a miscarriage, but nothing was ever done or attempted, although several appointments were made. On each occasion, however. Cooper made some excuse to put it off. She also met Cooper at his office when her husband and the former witness were present. On that occasion the accused asked for

a letter to protect him. This was done, witness signing one and her friend the other. There was not an atom of truth in either of the letters. The letter signed by this witness read: “As I cannot persuade you to come and help me out of my difficulty, I operated on myself. Please call and help.me out if you can. I have gone to stay with a friend.” This letter also was undated. She was present when her friend signed the other letter. Cooper took charge of both letters, and she had not since seen them. USEFUL LETTERS.

The Senior-Detective: Did you eveT have any occasion to speak to Cooper about the letters?—No, but my nus*)and did. The accused had said that these letters might come in useful to him later. He would use them if he thought fit. Ho said he had a civil case pending in connection with tho last witness. He refused at any time to aive them up, and also declined to perform any operation. Several appointments were not kept. “He was shifty all the time,” added the witness. “He would not keep his appointments. . There we»« so manv attempts to get the letters back that I do not remember when they first began. Immediately after 1 knew, I asked my husband to get the letters from Cooper.” “TO HELP EVERYBODY.”

When this witness first went to Cooper sho was single. Her marriage took place in 1922. The accused, she said, had practically offered to perform the operation, but later declined to carry it out. There was no arrangement about payment. llxs attitude, he said, was to help everybody he could. The husband of the last witness, a salesman, said he first met Cooper at a residence in Hill street. He was single at the time. This witness was also overcome by emotion for a time. Continuing, he 6aid Cooper had made a certain offer to him. There was no mention of any monetary reward. He met Cooper on several occasions at his own office in the city when Cooper had informed him that he would not pro ceed unless he had covering letters from his wife, and one of the previous witnesses. The letters were subsequently written as suggested. The wording in one letter was not considered strong enough, so Coojier made the other witness alter it. THE LETTERS DEMANDED.

Witness identified the letter produced by the police, and said to have been written by the older woman. He said he wrote to tho accused on one or two occasions, but ho did not keep the appointments made. He made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain the letter* from Cooper, who, however, refused to give them up." He said he would not- give them up until his civil case with the former witness had been settled. “KEPT ON SHUFFLING.”

Mr Treadwell: How long after the letters were written did you find out that the acefised would not perform the operation ? Witness: I cannot exactly say. He kept on shuffling for some time. It may have been one week or two or three. It seemed a month, to me. How, did you knowP—He never actually refused, hut we gathered that from the unsuccessful interviews with him. A WAITRESS’S DEATH. Dr. Harold Harris, house surgeon at Wellington Hospital, said he remembered a certain girl being brought into the hospital, who later died from' the effects of an incomplete abortion. Counsel for the accused questioned the admissibility of the doctor’s evidence. The senior-detective stated that a letter had been received by the accused from the girl, and had been found on his premises. Mr Treadwell again objected to this evidence, as he held it, was not admissible. Mr Page: I think that the evidence of the doctor is admissible, also the letter. Counsel: I would ask that my objection be noted, sir, on the grounds that it might prejudice the accused. Mr Page, S.M.: Very well. ' DEATH AFTER OPERATION. Continuing with his evidence, Dr. Harris said that the girl’s condition was very serious when she entered the hospital on October 13th, 1922. An operation was considered necessary to stop the haemorrhage. This was immediately performed. The patient died about two hours later, l ull particulars of her death were supplied to the Registrar by (the witness. There were no indications that an instrument had been used, and nothing to show how the miscarriage had been obtained. BROTHER’S EVIDENCE. The evidence of the next witness was also objected to. He was a married man, a fishmonger by occupation, and the brother of the girl who died in the hospital. He said sne had worked at a cafe in Wellington before her death. When living at her brother’s place her health was satisfactory until a few days before her death, when she complained of having had a fall as the result of slipping. She said she was not fit to go to work, and was persuaded to go to bed. She protested when the witness wanted to get a doctor to see her. In the afternoon 6he said she was a little easier. “I said she would have to see a doctor,” he added. “But she would not consent. The doctor came along in the evening. As the result of what be told me, she’ was sent to the hospital. My wife took her in a taxi.”

The witness said he did not again see his sister alive. On two occasions he had seen her writing, and was well acquainted with her handwriting. “I can honestly state that that is her writing,” he said when the lettorcard found on Cooper’s premises was shown him. The letter was addressed to “Mr D. R. Cooper, health specialist.” Personally, he was not acquainted 1 with the accused. “JUST A WORKING GIRL." “Just a few lines to see what date will suit you to see me,” ran the letter. “I am in trouble, and just a working girl. ... If you don’t mind letting me know which day, I will come into see you. A friend of mine told me about you, and told me to write to you ” The faot was elicited from the witness that the girl bad been in trouble on two previous ocoasions. POLICE EVIDENCE > ATTEMPT TO HIDE LETTERS. The f first of the police evidence was given by Detective William Harold, who was present when the accused and his .wife were examined at the detective’s office on December 30th. The male accused was later left in his charge. In the' course of conversation Cooper asked if he would take care of Borne correspondence for him, and a bundle was handed over. Cooper aeked.*the witness to keep the correspondence and not hand it to the detectives, .is, if they got hold of it, he “would fall, and so would a good many other good people in Wellington.’ l The let-

ters ware handed to witness’s superior officers. “A HEALTH SPECIALIST.” The six letters produced were formally identified. Twenty in all were re ceived by witness from the accused. - The detective said Cooper told him to hand the letters to a certain solicitor in Wellington, and not to let the detectives see them. “Cooper said that without the letters they could not do anything with him,” he added:. “The letters were produced from his coatpocket. He said he was a health specialist, and had arranged for the confinement of young giris.” “FANCY THAT.” Detective William McLennan said ho wa® concerned in the apprehension of tho accused, and also saw him at the detectives’ office. Cooper was then interviewed in connection with another matter. All correspondence was taken over, and also medicines and instruments. He searched the house at Newlands on January Ist where certain other exhibits were found in a drawer in a bedroom. At the Terrace gaol the accused was formally charged with certain alleged acts. When asked if he had anything to say, he made no reply until tho last charge was read out, when he then said: “Fancy that! That’s what a man gets when people come to him to do these things and he turns them down. They ought to be put on their trial.” When asked to say to whom he referred he replied: “Thos» people who said I aborted them.” Certain medical works were found in the office of the accused. Large quantities of medicines, chemicals,! and certain goods were found in his office. “I TOOK NO NOTICE.” Evidence was also given by Detectivo Jarrold, to whom Cooper said, when the charges were read over to him : “I have nothing to Bay.” A few mo - ments later he made the remarks related by the last witness. When questioned a® to any knowledge of tho young waitress who died in the Wellington Hospital, he replied: “I cannot say I do.” He was told that a letter had been found among his correspondence from a girl of the same name, containing information to the effect* that she had written to him when in a certain condition requesting assistance. Cooper then said: “Any letter’s 1 received like that I took no notice of them.” CHILDREN IN HOUSE.

Possession was taken of the keys of the house at Newlands on January Ist, the day when Mrs Cooper was arrested. The witness - went out' to get the two children, who were then the only inmates of the house. The children were conveyed to the city. In reply to Senior-Detective Lewis, the witness said there was no indication of a door having been forced at the house at Newlands, nor of a window having been tampered with, after he had locked the dwelling. STATEMENT BY ACCUSED.

Inspector Mcllveney, in charge of the Wellington police district, said he discovered a diary (produced) in a coat of the accused, when he visited the house at Newlands. The ledger (produced) was found in a. drawer. Senior-Detective Lewis tendered for-, mal evidence concerning certain interviews with the accused. Cooper gave a general statement consisting of several sheets, a considerable portion of which dealt with another case. Such parts as were considered relevant were read by the detective. In the course of this statement, Cooper had said he was 39 years of age, and a New Zealander by birth. For the last five years he had, practised as a health specialist. He first resided in Dunedin, and later at Newlands, near Johnsonville. He had dealt with various troubles. Certain drugs found on his premises were not for sale. .Ho could not account for others being there, while certain pills had been brought to him to be analysed. He had given advice to clients only along certain lines. Once he had been approached by interested persons regarding a pregnant, single girl, with a view to having her child adopted after it was horn. On other occasions he had been approached in a similar manner.

When charged with the first alleged offence. Cooper had said: “Ridiculous 1 Why, the woman is 52 years of age!” This concluded the case for the prosecution. PLEA DF NOT GUILTY. Cooper had nothing to say when asked the customary question, and pleaded not guilty. In asking that Cooper should be committed to the May sessions of the Supreme Court for trial, Mr Treadwell submitted that it would take at least six weeks to adequately prepare the defence. Mr Page,'in the course of his reply, stated that he had taken Mr Treadwell’s appeal into careful consideration. Even if he had such power, he did not feel that he could exercise it. After conferring with the Grown officers, Mr Treadwell might make the application in another court. Cooper was committed to stand his trial at next week’s sessions. The oourt adjourned at 5.45 p.m.