AN ILLEGAL ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18802, 3 March 1923, Page 2

AN ILLEGAL ACT

TWO WOMEN CHARGED. The City Police Court was crowded yesterday by an expectant audience that must have been disappointed when the court was cleared at the opening of a charge against (wo women named Mary Jane Clark and Edith Towler, of having engaged in an illegal operation in August last, on a young woman. The court was not only cleared, but the publication of the names of the two principal female witnesses prohibited. The case was heard before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., Mr Hanlon appearing for accused and Subinspector Eccles conducting the prosecution. Evidence was given by a single young woman from Christchurch, who stated that she' had been engaged to a young man nowdead. She kept company witli him for two years prior to July, IM2. There was intimacy on one occasion, as a result of which she became pregnant. Witness came to Dunedin about the end of July, 19£2, and stayed with a lady friend of hers. As tho result of a conversation, witness went to the Arcade to see Miss Towler, and saw a stout woman. Tho woman she saw was, she thought, stouter than accused. That was tho end of July or beginning of August. Nobody accompanied her. She saw Mlias Towler inside the shop. Sub-inspector Eccles: Did you have any conversation with her?

Mr Hanlon: Well, I object to that until eho idetifies the accused. The tw-o accused were directed to stand down on the floor by the court, to assist in identification, and witness said sho did not think either of the women were the ones sho saw in the shop. Continuing, she said that there was another lady in a room off the shop, into which she (witness) went, but eho could not say who she was. Witness could not see that lady in the court. There was a couch and two chairs and a little table with a vaso of flowers on it in the room. Sub-inspector Eccles: Was there any conversation ?

Mr Hanlon; I object. You must prove that it was with one of tho accused. Witness, continuing, said she did not have any conversation with anyone in tho room. She had a conversation with a lady in tho shop, and she knew why sho (witness) was there. She would probably know the shop she went into and would know the room. She had seen Dr do Lantour some time in July, before she went to the shop, and was told what her condition was. The woman she saw in the shop was very stout. That was all she knew. She was there about 10 minutes.

Sub-inspector Eccles: Did tho stout lady sav who she was?

Mr Hanlon; Now, I object to that You must identify tho person as one of tho accused, or that one of the accused was present.

His Worship held that the question was not admissible.

Continuing, witness said sho had been staying with her friend for about a fortnight when she went to the shop. On leaving the shop witness went straight home to her friend. Witness made no further visits to the shop in tho Arcade. Sub-inspector Eccles; Did you visit the shop next day?—No; I was at home next day. Sub-inspector Eccles: Did you visit it at any other time?—No. I never went into tho shop again. Continuing, witness said sho returned to Christchurch in November. She remembered being interviewed in Christchurch by Detective Connolly last Tuesday week.

.Sub-inspecter Eccles; On the only visit to tho shop did anything take place except a conversation? —Yes; in the room something took place. The lady in the room performed an operation. She could not identify her. Witness did not know her name. Witness paid the woman who performed the operation £lO. Several things she said to Detective Connolly were written down. She skipped tho statement through, and then signed it. Sab-inspector Eccles: Did yon say, “On arriving at Dunedin, I informed

Mr Hanlon: I object to that. It is 'not right to take pieces of the statement and ask her if she made that statement.

Sub-inspector Eccles suggested that he would have to treat tho witness as hostile.

His Worship said tho mere fact that a witness did not make a statement the subinspector wished her to mako did not necessarily make her hostile. Sub-inspector Eccles said he had a right to apply that he should treat witness as hostile. She was now making a different statement to which oho had previously made, and was hostile.

His Worship; The only thing is: the court must be satisfied that a witness is hostile. I think I will allow the question just to see the attitude of witness.

Witness then, replying to questions by the sub-inspector, baaed on the testament made to the police in Christchurch, said she told her friend in Dunedin of her condition. It was true that she went to the shop accompanied by her friend, and told Miss Towler of her condition, and Miss Towler told her to come back next morning, and that she would have a woman there who would' “fix her up.” She said it would cost £lO, and witness and her friend left the shop together. Witness returned to the shop next morning, and Miss Towler took her into a little room off tho shop. Witness had not said that she was introduced to a woman named Clark. Witness corrected this statement by saying that Mias Towler had used the words “My friend Mrs Clark.” It was quite possible for Mias Towler to have heard tho conversation with Mrs Clark. She had been so flustered by Detective Connolly that she scarcely knew what sho was saying. Tho woman she saw was like Miss Towler. but much stouter.

Cross-examined: by Mr Hanlon, witness said she had stated that it was Miss Towler, because she saw the name on the window of tho shop. Sho did not know the woman, and had not seen her since. The detective told her the names, and that was what was written down in the statements. The detectives had the names up there (Christchurch). She was not able to identify the two accused as tho women she had seen in the shop. It was dark in the room in tho shop Evidence of a formal nature was also given by Dr da Lantour, On the court resuming in the afternoon tho friend referred to gave evidence to the effect that the first witness had stayed with her. Witness went to the Arcade, to Miss Towler’s, with first witness, about the end of July or beginning of August. Witness thought the visit was made in the afternoon. Sho could not identify the woman they saw now, because she would not know her if she saw her. Witness thought she was tho proprietress of the shop more by guess than by anything else. She was the only one witness saw. Witness could only describe her as a stout woman—extra stout. There was nothing to indicate, in conversation, that the person was Miss Towler. Witness had never been in the shop before. She went on to detail the conversation as to first .witness’s condition, and stated that nil else ’ she could remember was that tho stout lady said olio would get a lady and see what she could do for first witness. She also said to call back next day. After the second visit by first witness she stayed in the house for about two days, though she could have gone out. ‘Witness thought she could find the shop again. Sub-inspector said ho would aak first witness and tlris witness to go to the Arcade, and point out the shop. His Worshop said he would give the subinspector an opportunity of taking the witnesses to point out the shop if they could do 90.

Abraham Israel, shopkeeper in the Arcade, stated that he knew the two accused. Mies Towler’s chop was next to his. H.e had seen Mrs Clark in Miss Towler’s place, but how often bo could not say. Ho might have seen her there two or three times during the last six months.

The. tv.o witnesses were then taken, under police escort, to point ont the premises in the Arcade. Detective Beer said that with Detective Palmer, and another ; dice officer, he went to the house of accused Clark. The warrant for her arrest was read, and she asked what the girl’s name was, and when told stated that she did not know her. A search was made but nothing’ suspicious was found. They went to the shop of accused Towler. and when the warrant was read to her she said “I have never put my hand on a woman in my life.” "Witness described certain articles found, and produced several letters which were put in as evidence. There was only one shop in the Arcade occupied by a Miss Towler. On February witness found accused in conversation with a young girl, and accused them of having a certain intention, which they denied. Dr Evans gave evidence that one of the articles found in Towlcr’s was a solid 1 female catheter, the use of which required skill. Senior Sergeant Hathieson gave evidence as to the two witnesses; each in turn, having pointed out Miss Towlor’s shop as the •shop they had entered. Ho knew the shop well us being occupied. Mr Hanlon, on the conclusion of the police evidence, submitted that there was no case raado out against cither of accused. The case failed on the point of identification. The court might come to the conclusion that somebody had performed an illegal operation upon a girl, hut that was not sufficient. There must be evidence that one. or both, accused performed the operation. or took part in it. There was no evidence of that. Neither did the two young women identify either accused. All that had been proved was that someone in a shop in the Arcade had said that she would get a friend of hero to “fix her up.” That woman was not identified. Clark had said she did not know the girl at all, and nothing incriminating" had been found on

her premises. There was nothin gto connect Mrs Clark with the case. Mrs Clark had been talked about, but it did not follow that this Mrs Clark was the woman. Where was there a piece of evidence that proved with reasonable certainty that Mrs Clark was the woman who performed this operiu tion. The court had to be satisfied that there was some evidence upon which it could say that n prinia facio case had been made out. The woman who had committed the offence upon tho gjrl could not he described by her. She said tho room was dark. There was not a particle of evidence that connected Clark with the offence, and she was entitled’!' to have the case dismissed. As far as tho other woman was concerned, the police had asked the court to find a prima facio ease. This young woman hud gone to premises ripen which was the name Towler, and had seen a woman whom she could not identify. She thought it was a stouter woman than Towler. She bad said point blank that she could not identify either of the women. And the other young woman said "No. 1 can’t identify her. I never saw her but onco, and 1 have never seen her since.” A catheter had been found on the premises, but that did not prove anything. The woman operated upon had said that something! els© had been used. What was alleged to have been used was rusty, and no one in their sober senses would have ■used it upon anybody. In addition letters had been found, but these were not written by accused, but by people quite i ,T u>rt from her. These oonld not be used. They were statements made by other persons. one could prevent being written to, asking them to (So something. There was not a sufficient ease made out against cither accused.

His Worship said the evidence had quit© properly been considered by Mr Hanlon. Identification, to a certain extent, was absent. However, there was evidence, and the value of that evidence it was not for him (Mr Bundle) to determine. There was evidence that two of the witnesses had gone to a shop in the Arcade, and there was evidence that Miss Towler carried on business, by hersolf, there. Under the circumstances h© did not decide whether the women were guilty or not guilty. Accused were committed for trial; bail being allowed each in 1300, and two sureties of £l5O.