DEATH OF WOMAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24969, 16 July 1942, Page 3

DEATH OF WOMAN

ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION THERAPEUTIST ON TRIAL The trial of Henri Arthur Hirt, aged 48, a Swiss, on a charge of having on April 21 unlawfully used an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy. Mr C. J. L. White, instructed by Messrs Baylee and Brunton, appeared for the accused, and the prosecution was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor. Mr P. B. Adams. The hearing of the case was interrupted yesterday afternoon when Detective J. C. Russel) was giving evidence regarding the arrest of the accused. At this point the admissibility of a deposition made by the young woman on what had proved to be her death bed was challenged by Mr White, The point at issue was whether Mr Baylee had had full opportunity of cross-examining the deceased after she had made her deposition before a special court at the Hospital. Deposition Admitted

Consideration of this question was continued throughout the morning yesterday. Evidence was given by a number of witnesses regarding what had happened after Hirt’s arrest, when Hirt was at the police station, and when the accused appeared the same night at the special court at the Hospital. George Tyrell Baylee, continued his evidence. He said that he had had no means of knowing whether his questions were or were not relevant until he had consulted Hirt. Evidence was also given by Detective Russell. Detective Sergeant Hall, and Professor J. B. Dawson, professor of obstetrics at the University of Otago. Detective Russell said ho had not heard the woman say that she did not want to go on with her statements. Mr Adams asked Detective Sergeant T. Y. Hall this question: Did Mr Baylee make any application to the magistrate for further time or opportunity of conferring with his client? Detective Sergeant Hall: None whatever. I thought by his demeanour that he had had all the conversations he wanted both at the Police Station and at the Hospital. Professor J. B. Dawson, professor of obstetrics at the University of Otago, said that the deceased had been in a fit condition to give evidence. The deceased had given her evidence extremely well. , She had had one small emotional disturbance. There was no need for any sudden closure of the examination. He knew from his experience that there was a possibility of a sudden collapse in these cases. His opinion was that the deceased might have died at any moment, and that it would have been unwise to postpone the examination until the following day. The deceased had lived for 11 days afterwards. Mr Adams, addressing the court, said that the question was whether Mr Baylee had had full opportunity afforded for cross-examination. It was a question of fact. Counsel submitted that the position which had faced Mr Baylee was not the difficulty of being unable to cross-examine the woman, but the danger which would have faced him if he had. Counsel said that Mr Baylee had had every opportunity of cross-examination in this case, but that he had exercised a wise discretion in not cross-examining. His Honor said he thought the deposition should be admitted, and he proposed to admit it accordingly. He would, however, if it were desired, state a case on the main matter under consideration—namely, whether there was full opportunity for the cross-examination of the woman—to the Court of Appeal under section 442 of the Crimes Act, 1908. Deposition Read

The deposition of the woman, who stated that she was 23 years of age, was then read to the court. It told how she had visited a certain room and had had an instrument used. She had identified Hirt in the room in the Hospital at the Special Court as the man who had used the instrument. Dr Dawson again gave evidence. He said that the woman was quite lit at the Special Court to give evidence. She had been admitted to the Hospital on April 28. on a note from Dr Monheimer. Witness explained the treatment which had been given to her. which included two operations and four or five transfusions of blood. The woman died from a septic miscarriage. Such a miscarriage could be caused by the use' of an instrument. Witness explained the use to which certain instruments exhibited in the court could be put. These instruments had been taken from Hirt’s rooms. He would not expect to find these instruments in use by anyone but a medical man.

Dr Eric F. D’Ath, professor of pathology at the University of Otago, said that he had held a post-mortem on the body of the woman on May 8. He was of the opinion that she had died from toxoemia, the result of peritonitis. He gave evidence regarding the use of a lengthy list of exhibits of instruments and other articles.

Detective Sergeant Hall said that he had been present with Detective Russell when the accused had been arrested. Ho had also been present at the sppn.al court in the Hospital. The woman had had one violent coughing fit at the Hospital, but had otherwise been quite ■'hie to proceed. She had definitely identified the accused as the man who had used an instrument. Mr White: From the records of the accused do you find that he is Swiss born? Witness: Yes. He Is of Swiss nationality. but I cannot say whether he is of Swiss birth. He had been naturalised in New Zealand. He had served with the British forces in the last war. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr White stated that he did not Intend to call evidence. Mr Adams’s Address Mr Adams, in his address to the jury, said that the foundation of the case against o tiie accused was, of course, the deposition of the woman. That deposition represented the sworn and signed testimony of the woman in the presence of the accused and of his counsel, Mr Baylee. On the certificate of the magistrate who had presided at the special court, there was the statement that the accused’s counsel had been given the opportunity for cross-examining the woman, but that right had not been exercised. Counsel read the deposition of the woman. It stated that the operation took place on April 21 and that ghe was admitted to the Hospital the following week on a note from Dr Monheimer. She had paid the accused £4, If that story was true, said counsel, then without the shadow of a doubt the accused had committed the crime of which he was charged. Counsel pointed out that the woman was herself committing a crime in allowing the operation to be performed on her. The woman’s evidence, as an accomplice, was. however, corroborated by other witnesses, ami the jury had to satisfy itself that the corroboration was satisfactory. Counsel referred to the many instruments, etc., which had been found in the accused’s rooms. He thought it was perfectly obvious what kind of trade was being carried on in the accused’s rooms. Counsel .reviewed the evidence of certain witnesses for the prosecution. When the accused had been arrested ho said, " I dc not know the woman obviously an untrue statement on the evidence presented by the Crown. Counsel said that on that evidence there had been ample corroboration of the deposition of the woman. The court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.