MYSTERIOUS DEATH

Otago Witness, Issue 3215, 27 October 1915, Page 26

MYSTERIOUS DEATH

ILLEGAL OPERATION ALLEGED,

GRAVE STATEMENTS AT INQUEST. Grave statements were made in the Magistrate's Court on the 20th inst., when the adjourned inquest on Catherine Stanley, aged 31 years, who died m the Dunedin Hospital on October 6, was resumed before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M. (district coroner). Chief Detective Bishop appeared for the police, and conducted the proceedings, Mr H. D. Bedford appeared on behalf of Maud Marion Turner, and Mr J. R. M. Lemon for the husband of the deceased, Pcrcival Alfred Stanley, storeman, of Dunedin. The medical evidence seemed to indicate that the death of Mrs Stanley was due to an illegal operation. Several witnesses were called, and the hearing lasted from 10.30 a.m. till 4.15 p.m. There was a direct conflict of evidence, several witnesses .giving particulars of an alleged illegal operation, while the two women said to have brought about the operation denied all knowledge of it. Dr Bowie, assistant medical superintendent of the Dunedin Hospital, said that Mrs Stanley was admitted to the Hospital on September 30. She said she felt very weak and ran down, and that for a week before admission she had had pains which had continued at intervals. On September 29, she added, she had had a slight hemorrhage, and on September 30 the pains became severe. She was admitted under the care of Dr North. On October 5 witness was called in. Next morning he acted in the case as he was asked. In doing so, he did not know they were dealing with a case in which there was any suggestion of illegal intorfei ance. He did ■ not suspect any interference, illegal or otherwise. He operated on deceased, and removed the foetus, which was dead. The patient recovered from the operation, but shortly after midday she suddenly began to gasp for breath, and in a few minutes she was dead. It was thought that death*-was probably due to an embolism. Witness would sa\- that the foetus had been dead two or throe days when it was removed, but it might have been N alive when deceased entered the Hospital. She was said to be a married woman with two children, and to bo pregnant. If witness had known that deceased had been interfered with he would have altered his course of procedure somewhat in dealing with the case. This might have saved her life. Witness first heard of the interference on October 6. Dr Roberts held a post-mortem examination in the presence of witness. V ABORTION UNSKILFULLY ATTEMPTED. Dr Roberts (honorary phys.c.an at the Hospital) said that he held a post-mortem examination of deceased on October 7, Dr Bowie being present. There were no external marks of violence. The pelvic organs were intensely congested. Certain injuries supported the inference that very great force had been used by some blunt instrument. All the other organs were practically normal. From the manner of her death, together with the post-mortem findings, witness considered death was due to sudden heart failure, consequent on the effect of toxic absorption from the pelvic lesions.' The rapidity of the absorption would bo increased by the necessary operation performed by Dr Bowie._ There was clear evidence that an unskilful _ attempt had boon made to procure abortion, and that was the primary cause of her death. The instrument, he would say, had boon used at least a week before death. There was nothing else to cause death. DECEASED’S MOTHER’S STORY. Marjory Houston said she was a married woman living apart from her husband, and resided at 11 Rankielor street, South Dunedin, with her son. Deceased was her daughter, and had resided at 40 Grosvenor street, Kensington, with her husband. She had been married six years, and had two children, aged four and two years respectively. About two months ago deceased visited witness, and said she was pregnant. She said her husband had obtained pills for her from a Mr Towlor, and they had made her very ill. She was taking the pills to bring on a miscarriage. Deceased added on a subsequent visit that her husband had advised her to go and see a Mrs Towlor. She was fooling better, having stopped using the pills. As a result of subsequent conversations with her daughter witness ascertained that Mrs Stanley visited Mrs Towler at Queen’s Drive, Musselburgh, and they made an appointment to meet one evening at Mr Halligan’s butcher’s shop, at the corner of King Edward street and Bay View road. Mrs Towler was to take her to a Mrs Turner, who lived near the_ Forbury racccourse. Airs Turner was doing a lot of this business deceased added. The witness then gave details, as related to her by her daughter, of an alleged operation performed by Mrs Turner at the latter’s house for £5, "paid in advance. The operation was repeated three or four times, and did not succod. and the deceased, demanding her money back, got it after a good deal of j trouble. Continuing, witness said that about five weeks after deceased’s last visit to Mrs j Turner her husband called in Dr Williams. | Deceased subsequently told witness that she , was about four months and a-half pregnant. , Dr Williams called again about a week later, 1 on September 30, and ordered deceased to the hospital. Deceased’s husband was not kind to her, and did not look after her, j and the house was no place for her in her condition. Witness did not care to inter- ! fere in what was being done, since her daughter always placed her husband before her mother. The husband wanted to bury deceased without allowing witness to see her, and that was why witness’s son placed : the matter in the hands of the police. | Stanley was constantly coming homo drunk and abusing his wife during her lifetime, j EVIDENCE OF THE HUSBAND. Pcrcival Alfred Stanley, husband of the ; deceased, said that ho discovered hie wife to bo pregnant about four months ago. He ‘ obtained a box of pills from Mr W. A. 1 Towler, Airs Houston and the deceased | having expressed the opinion in convex-- ! sation that it was time witness got some- I tiling to restore the deceased to her normal i condition. The pills had no effect in the | desired direction. The witness then gave i evidence practically corroborative of that of i Mrs Houston regarding the alleged opera- j tion, and said that his wife had described the operation as performed manually by I Mrs Turner, without any instrument. Ho | made no explanation to the doctors as to the cause of the illness of deceased. Ho did not connect it with her visit to Airs

Turner, and did not think it necessary to report the matter to the police. The Chief Detective: When the suggestion was made by deceased’s mother that the matter should be put into the hands of the police, did you not say that if that -wore done it would get into the newspapers | and you might got five years? —No. ! MRS TURNER DENIES EVERYTHING. ' Maud Marion Turner said she was a married woman, whoso husband was in an asylum, and she resided at Forbury crescent, St. Kilda. She had eight children living, of whom two were at home. She had known Mrs Towler for years, but Mrs Towler had not at any time, recently or otherwise, brought''a woman to witness’s house. She did not know the deceased, and had not, to her knowledge, ever seen her. Mrs Towler had visited witness once since March. Witness saw the death of Mrs Stanley reported in the Times. Do you swear that no woman has ever been to your place to get you to procure abortion ?—I do. Have you ever visited any female, in the open or in a house, for such a purpose ? No. Air Stanley’s statement with rcfci-once to the matter is untrue ? —lt is untrue, j Is it true that young women occasionally visit your place ? —lt is untrue. Do you frequently receive registered letr tors? —Only from my married daughter, when she wants me to buy something for her. Wore you ever questioned by the police before about abortion?—Constable Heard once asked me if a certain young girl was staring with me, and I denied it, and have hoard nothing of the matter since. Was it %iot about abortion ?—No. Airs Susan Towler, wife of Walter A. Towler. said she know Airs Turner well, but had never taken any woman to her. iStanlev’s evidence was untrue. It was untrue that Stanley had called at witness’s house and threatened to publish the connection between witness and Airs Turner and his wife. She had met Stanley before, but had never met Mrs Stanley. When the detectives visited your house and asked you if you knew a Airs Turner, living noa.r the racecourse, you said, “I know a Mrs Turner at Sunshine,” and had to bo questioned repeatedly before you admitted that you knew the Mrs Turner referred to. Why such hesitat’on ?—I did not know which Airs Turner you meant. Have you ever been approached by any woman for the purpose of an illegal operation ? —Never. Assuming your denial to be truthful, can you suggest any motive, such as unfriendliness, for instance, for Mr Stanley’s assertions on oath ? —I cannot. Walter A. Towler, magazine keeper at ■ Anderson Bay, said he recollected Stanley | asking him to get a box of female pills, and j he went to his sister, a specialist in the arcade, and obtained them. Stanley did not say what he wanted them for. Witness had never mot or seen Airs Stanley. Ho had never seen Mrs Turner at his house or elsewhere. Ho did not know what the pills were for. , Rose Harriot Mann, nurse, gave evidence concerning* the rcmoT'al of deceased to the Hospital. THE QUALITIES OF PILLS. Edith Elizabeth Towler, a resident at Sunshine, said her mother carried on a business in the arcade as a ladies’ specialist, and witness attended to the shop. She supplied her brother, the previous witness, with a box of female pills. When she asked whom they—were for Towler replied: ‘‘Oh, a friend; he’s a white man; he's all right.” She would not have given the pills if she did not think a person who asked for them was “all right.” They were for anaemia, and generally to act as a corrective/ ffho pills in question were not for miscarriage, | and were harmless. I Then, why would you not give them to anyone ?—I woidd only give them fb someone I knew or to a married person. James Houston, brother of deceased, said ho know of the attempt to procure abortion before the deceased went to the Hospital, and he told his mother to toll the doctors what had happened, so that they should know how to treat her. After the death witness reported the matter to the police. He told Stanley what he had done, a,nd Stanley said. “You will got me seven years, and there will be a lot in the newspapers about it to show us up.” DELIBERATE PERJURY ALLEGED, j HUSBAND (SEVERELY CENSURED. i ; The adjourned inquest was concluded at the Law Courts on Friday afternoon. Dr Williams gave evidence as to his visiting deceased at her own home and prescr’bi ing for threatening miscarriage. In reply to a question he said : If I had known of any interference on my rst visit I should have sent her into the Hospital immediately. Dr North, assistant gynaecologist on the honorary staff of the Hospital, said that the patient’s condition seemed to indicate that her trouble was an ordinary _ accidental hemorrhage, and she said nothing to in- . dicate to the contrary. Deceased had a j premonition of imminent death. She was i apparently a very healthy woman. I Do you think that if you had known, at I the time of her admission to the Hospital, 1 of the interference that had taken place, i her life might then have been saved?—l do think so. Hors was one of those rare cases of peritonitis in which the ordinary external s - "gns are totally wanting, j “DESPICABLE COWARDICE.” j In delivering his verdict, the Coroner said that the case was a deplorable one. It was rendered extraordinary by the fact that not only had the interference with the deceased been performed with the cognisance of her husband, but it had been made a matter of j conversation with the deceased’s mother, and had been made known, also, to her brother. The medical evidence showed clearly that an illegal operation was performed on deceased with a blunt instrument and by an unskilful person. This criminal interference was the primary cause of death. Whether, or to what extent, it had boon done at the instigation„ of. or under the pressure from, the husband, or at the suggestion of the wife alone, or at the desire of both, there was no clear evidence to establish. But it was clear that the husband was cognisant of all that was going on, and, from his conduct from start to finish, that ho was a party to it. At the end it must have been known, notwithstanding what the husband had said to the contrary, that the deceased was ill from the cause mentioned. The husband seemed to have acted in a despicably cowardly manner. The husband desired the court to believe that ho had thought his wife’s illness not

to be duo to the visits paid to the women Towler and Turner; that was to say, that ho had believed it would not be due to an illegal operation. He (Mr Widdoweon) could not conceive that the husband could have thought any such thing, and the truth of this was shown by the fact that he would not, on the death of his wife, take any part in informing the police of the occurrences, for fear that he would get into trouble. He nad no excuse at all, for he knew his wife was in a serious condition, and if he thought what he alleged he was a very’ extraordinary man. Considering her condition, it was a cowardly thing to say nothing about the interference, for it had been clearly shown that if something had boon said her life might have been saved. He carefully refrained from saying anything, and the mother and brother, who knew of what had happened, also said nothing. “DELIBERATE PERJURY.” The mother and brother, Mr Widdowson continued, might be said to have acted ignorantly, but it was inexcusable ignorance. The mother even passively dissuaded the deceased from speaking, by not encouraging her daughter to when the latter made a move towards doing so. It had been alleged that the deceased had been taken to Mrs Turner by Mrs Towler, and that Mrs Turner had performed an illegal operation for a consideration of £5, returned afterwards when the operation proved unsuccessful. This was denied by Mrs Towler and Mrs Turner. That there had been deliberate perjury during the inquest there was no shadow of doubt, ‘and it was clear that an illegal operation had been performed. It was stated that whatever was done by Mrs Turner was concluded four or five weeks before Dr • Williams’s visit to deceased. That was possible, but highly improbable, and the operation must have been performed about a fortnight before death. Some of the evidence that could be, and had been, admitted in an inquiry of that kind would not be considered strictly legal evidence in a court of law. It would be for the police now to consider seriously the evidence, and to decide what further steps to take. All ho could say was that there had been an illegal operation, from which the deceased had died, and ho must repeat that the husband had acted in a very callous and highly reprehensible manner, and that the mother and brother were also blameworthy for not having mentioned what had happened. The verdict would bo that the deceased had died from a sudden heart failure, consequent upon toxic absorption from pelvic lesions, caused by the use of an instrument in an illegal operation on deceased to procure miscarriage. The police intend to consider the question of taking further steps in the matter.