JUDGE EDWARDS IN FORM.

NZ Truth, Issue 67, 29 September 1906, Page 5

JUDGE EDWARDS IN FORM.

Jury's Recommendation Flouted. The Pitiful Case of Young Macpherson. His Girl-wife Shamed and Widowed. At the half-yearly sittings of the Supreme Court at Hokitika, on the 20th inst., before Mr Justice Ed- • wards, a number of cases of merg than ordinary interest and importance were dealt with.. His Honor's decisions m some of these rather startled the Hokitika public and almost took away the breath from a number of respectable jurymen. When the sessions opened the juries had little hesitation m deciding the cases brought against the different accused, but after experiencing a taste of his Honor's quality and his fine discernment m fitting the punishment to the crime, with liberal allowances on the side of justice rather than mercy, jurymen became somewhat more chary and did not rush things. Prominent among the cases decided was that against Charles James Macpherson, who was indicted on a charge of having, at Greymouth, procured one John Yoematv Pascoe, a Reefton veterinary surgeon to . PROCURE /THE ABORTION of one Mary Rosetta McCormack, now Macpherson. The details of this case were, pretty fully given m the columns of " Truth"" when it was tried before Magistrate Kenrick, at Greymouth, some months ago. Briefly summarised the facts were that Macpherson," a prominent West Coast footballer, the son of highly respectable parents, got a girl into the usual trouble and m order to rid her of the results thereof he interviewed Pr-ad-Piller Pascoe at Reefton and made arrangements with him to perform an illegal operation. One night shorthr afterwards Macpherson and the girl met Pascoe at a flag-station on the outskirts of Greymouth. The Reefton Prad-Piller and the girl went into the station building and AN OPERATION WAS PERFORM- ' ■ * . ■ ED, as- the result of which the girl, some time afterwards, had a miscarriage. These details • reached . the ears of the police, who made further investigations and rot voluntary statements from both Macpherson and the girl and thus armed they arrested Pascoe, who was called on to answer a charge at the Magistrate's Court of having procured 'abortion. This charge failed, owing to Macpherson and the girl (who had been married m the interim) declining to swear to the statements they had previously made to the police ; their plea being that if they did - so they, would incriminate themselves. The next development was the arrest of Macpherson and his wife on charges, respectively, of having procured Pascoe to procure abortion, and of having allowed Pascoe to use instruments for that purpose. Both were committed for trial, and the 'case against Macpherson was heard iat Hokitika on the 20th inst. The evidence adduced was practically on the same lines as that brought put at the Magisterial enquiry, the main contentions of the defence being that the Crown had failed to prove that an instrument had been used, and that the miscarriage was due to other causes. An attempt was also made to discredit the statements obtained from Macpherson and his wife by the police. Mr Beare, who .appeared for the accused, at the conclusion of the evidence raised the point that the Crown had failed to prove

THE PROCURING OF PASCOE and the committing of the offence. His Honor, however, said plump and plain that he. wasn't going to . stop the case on that ground. In addressing the jury Mr Beare stressed the insinuation that the accused's statement to the police was made under compulsion. His Honor, however, told the jury that Detective Campbell, m obtaining Macphersori's statement, had acted with every fairness, and accused had affirmed his statement after having been given a chance by st.he5 t.he authorities to withdraw it. ? The jury, his ' Honor continued, were now asked to believe that Macpherson had wrongSy accused) himself ; but if counsel's contention were correct he had done more— he had atrociously implicated another man as being concerned m the crime, to wit Pascoe. "Weil." remarked his Honor drily, "if the jury believe that construction' of the case they will have to." The 'jury retired for twenty-seven minutes and came back with a verdict of Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Sentence was deferred till the 22nd inst., on which date Macpherson came up for sentence. Mr Beare, before his -Honor proceeded to inflict punishment, said that m view of the recommendation of the jury he would ask his Honor if he could see his way to grant probation. His Honor; "That's nonsense. You surely know that his offence doesn't come within the Act. It is clearly useless to talk of the First Offenders' Probation Act m cases like this ; it is turning the law into a farce ; it. would be ridiculous. Of course he won't offend again, but it is the public example I have to consider."

Mr Beare again suggested that it was a case for probation. His Honor : "I have to consider i the public conscience oE the reputable community throughout the colony." Continuing his Honor pointed out that the consequences of the crime of which the prisoner had been found guilty could not be undone and that he was liable to imprisonment for life for havirie committed it. There was, he added, a wide margin between imprisonment for life and letting the prisoner out on probation. Mr Beare : All the restitution possible on his (prisoner's) part has been made. His Honor : That doesn't lessen the crime. It was not, he continued, a '•uestion of reforming prisoner! He did not anticipate that prisoner would commit a similar crime nor had he any reason to think that he would commit any crime. Mr Beare said he would leave the question of punishment to his Honor's merciful consideration^

His Honor pointed out that he was not responsible for the legislation dealing with the offence, and that the legislature had not brought the procuration of abortion 'within the provisions of the First Offenders' Probation Act. Addressing the prisoner his Honor said that it was quite out of the question that he could pass this offence by without inflicting a sentence, and a substantial sentence. Prisoner's case did not come within the provisions of the First Offenders' Act and he could not, extend that Act ; he could do what would be equivalent— discharge the prisoner and order him to come up for sentence when called upon, but that was impossible. The offence was one of a serious character, and that had attracted great public attention and consideration, and one which, unfortunately, was of too frequent occurrence. No doubt, though prisoner was the principle offender m the eye of the law, he was not so m the eye of morality— the principal offender was the man. who made a business of this crime. The girl when she consented to the act had risked her life; prisoner had taken no risk, or thought he took none. Moreover, the girl was probably under prisoner's Influence, at all events prisoner was the means of procuring the crime to be done. In addition to probaibly being under prisoner's influence the girl was strongly impressed with a sense of shame which every Secent girl who has lapsed from virtue feels m the circumstances.. • There was much greater allowance to be made for her than for the prisoner. Prisoner had thought to get rid of the consequences of seduction by a serious crime. After he had expressed his willing-, ness to assist the course of justice, and to assist m the conviction of the principal offender— which if he had done he (prisoner) would have been allowed to go free— he had chosen to go back on it. He (his Honor) would certainly give effect, to the recommendation of the jury— he always did give effect to such recommendations because he thought it encouraged juries to do their duty m other cases where, when there ought not to be any reason for doing so, they allowed accused persons to go free. The sentence of the court was that prisoner be imprisoned, with hard labor, m Hokitika gaol for two years. As an outcome of- the conviction m this case the Reefton prad-piller has been arrested, and another attempt Will be made (to prove a case against him. At the conclusion of the case against Macpherson Crown Prpsecutor Park intimated that m view of his Honor's remarks m sentencing Macpherson, he did not propose calling evidence m the case against Mrs Macpherson. His Honor remarked that that case appeared to be a clear breach of the law, but of course the matter . was m Mr Park's hands.