MARTHA BERRY'S BABY.

NZ Truth, Issue 407, 12 April 1913, Page 5

MARTHA BERRY'S BABY.

. •■■ ■•' '• ■ '■• - ;j . ■'■- '-■■■.'.-'.♦ '. . ". '-, '■■'...-'<■■ ■ .-■■•■ COUNSEL SAYS SHE SDffERED THE "TORMENTS Of HELL" Magistrate Discharges Accused— No Jury Would Convict.

When the case, m which a young ; woman: named Martha Berry was charged with having disposed of the dead body of a femalei child by concealing it m a drawer m a bedroom of, the Hotel Windsor, Wellington, was called on at 1 the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, before' Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., there was a "full house" m the public reserve of the court; building. The audience was . ; ' DOOMED TO DISAPPOINTMENT,. however, as the Magistrate very properly directed that all, except those connected with the case and the press representatives, be turned into the street, and told to go arid mind their own- business affairs. Chief Detective Broberg conducted the prosecution, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for. Martha. , ? Dr. W.K. Fyfle deposed that on March IS he made ia post-mortem examination of a female child. The body weighed 2slb, and. was .wrapped i m blood-stained japrons, towels, and j other clothes, on the towel being the ! name "Windsor," and on the apron 'the name of "Benry.".:Fr6m the 'condition of the lungs, although diseased, he was certain the child had breathed. He could not say accurately'the exact "age" of the infant, but as a full-time, baby usually weighed about 6£tt>, he thought the child was between seven and eight months. Except for the congested condition, of the brain (probably caused by suffocation at the time, or immediately after,' birth), there was nothing to show from what cause the child had died. „ Cross-examined by Mr. Wilford, the doctor said that the condition of the lungs did not prove thajt the breath was the living and expiring one— the child had breathed definitely, i.e., it had taken three or four breaths at the least. Tho child had certainly lived, but there was 'an absence of marks of external violence;^" The conditions generally were not consistent with the theory -that i death was due to SUFFOCATION AT BIRTH, but the possibility 'was that. the cord became twisted , immediately after birth- As ' there was no food m the stoma.ch, that alone would account for the child dying immediately after birth. Dr. McCaw, of Wellington Hospital, gavo evidence of treating the defendant when she was admitted to the institution. „ To Mr. .Wilford : She was m bed when he examined" her first ; she was m no pain, and was neither distressed or unnerved, but calm, cool and collected. You questioned her after you had diagnosed her complaint '.> By what

power, right, or authority did you dp that ? . . ; ■ ■--.'■ Witness remained silent. ' Will yoyi deny that you were asked to find out ; ; all you could about her,? .'-. ■'/■'• /■[ ■■■■'■ , I \ ' ■ ".".- . Witness : YES, I DEOSnr IT ! \ In reply to ftirther questions ; witness said he was asked , whether the, defendant , had had a certain mishap. He swore- positiyely that accused had been ' "seriously indisposed" about a week prior to the operation. He 'heard accused make no admission or confession to a hospital sister. Gladys Craig, .employed m the : capacity of housemaid 1 and waitress at; the Hotel Windsor, said she occupied the same room as Miss Berry. On the night of March li, accused complained of feeling unwell. At ab6ut; two o'clock on the following morn&ag witness heard Berry m the bathroom, but she subsequently returned to the bedroom. 1 About an hourlater she paid another visit to the bathroom, saying she felt sick. On waking at 6.45 a.m., accused again complained of haying had a restless, sleepless night. Witness noticed blood on the floor, near accused's bed. , After detailing other events, witness testified to finding the body, wrapped m blood-stained clothing, m Miss Berry's drawer on the chest of drawers m their bedroom on March 17 ; it was the same body as THE [DETECTIVE TOOK AWAY. To Mj\ Wi.ford : There' was no key to the. drawer and the body was m an easy discoverable place. . Detective Bailey said that when he charged Martha Berry with the offence she made no reply. Nora O' Carroll and Constable McKelvie aJso gave evidence, and this closed the case for the^prosecution. Mr. Wilford said the charge was iaid under section 194 of the Crimes Act, m which ..any person found guilty of the offence named was liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. "I desire to draw your attention to the wording of the section," said counsel, addressing the^magistrate : "Dispose" the; dead body of a child. It was a queer word the word "dispose," and it was of great importance on the bearing of this case, he said. It was essential that the prosecution should prove that the child was dead before it was concealed m the chest, and this, Mr. Wilford contended, the evidence had not established. The two points of his defence were : First— That the accused did not dispose of the dead body of the child, and, secondly, that she did not conceal it. The meaning of concealment was, briefly : secret disposition. That there was no concealment was proved by the fact that the drawer was not locked and the body was ACCESSIBLE TO ANYONE. ■Mr. Wilford, after quoting various authorities m support of his contention that no crime had been committed, concluded by sayiDg "that as the girl had passed through the torments of hell," she bad suffered enough without inflicting any further punislunent. His Worship stated that though there were one or two points against her, there was, m his opinion, insufficient evidence to warrant him sending accused before a jury — -he did not think a jury would convicttherefore, he would discharge her.