ABORTION TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23333, 27 October 1937, Page 6

ABORTION TRIAL

o : VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY JURIES AND PUBLIC AGITATION (Per United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 26. Gertrude Grace Taylor, a married woman, of Christchurch, was to-day acquitted at her second trial on charges of unlawfully using an instrument to procure abortion on three occasions. The case was heard before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury. A jury had disagreed after a retirement of four hours at the first trial of the accused on October 20. Mr A. W Brown prose cuted and Mr Hardie Boys, of Wellington, appeared for the accused. The case proceeded along similar lines to those of the previous trial, the only new evidence being that of Agnes Burns, a married woman, who was convicted at the previous hearing on October 20. when she and Mrs Taylor were on trial. The danger of allowing outside interest in the subject of abortion to influence the jury was emphasised again by Mr Justice Northcroft, the Crown Prosecutor, and counsel for the defence. Mr Hardie Boys said that the case for the Crown rested largely on the evidence of accomplices and he warned the jury that on the advice of judicial authorities this evidence should be regarded with suspicion. Not a small part of the campaign against abortion, Mr Hardie Boys said, had been directed against juries and the jury system. A~ book had been published which by its title was directed to juries. It was said that in abortion cases juries did not convict, and unless they did " this and that would happen. The view appeared to be that an accused had only to be put in the dock and it was the duty of a jury to convict, but the present jury was not hi court on a heresy hunt or as a social welfare committee, and unless the evidence proved the accused to be guilty a verdict of guilty should not be returned. His Honor, in summing up, said that the jury must not be influenced in making a decision by the outside interest and agitation about abortion, nor by the opinion of the presiding judge or counsel on either side. It was indeed true that the public was anxiously interested in the subject of abortion. It was proper for those interested in social questions to address themselves earnestly to the problem of abortion, but that was not the duty of a jury, which was to decide a case on the evidence. After analysing the evidence, his Honor said that the subject of abortion was an uneasy one for many people, and its prevalence was a danger in seducing juries from their dutv. He reminded the jury that if there was any danger to the jury system it was not from outside, but from the juries themselves, which were bound on oath to decide a case on the evidence. v The jury retired for about 45 minutes, and on returning the foreman said that on the evidence the accused was found not guilty.