CHARGES OF ABORTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3609, 15 May 1923, Page 25

CHARGES OF ABORTION.

At tlie Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Thursday, 10th inst., before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury, Ruth Kate Crane field appeared to answer two charges of procuring abortion. Ruth Kate Cranefield appeared to answer two charges of procuring abortion. Mr Barrowclough, for the accused, objected to both charges being taken together and to the admission of certain evidence contained in a letter. The judge decided that the two charges be heard together. He said that if the Crown introduced the other evidence Mr Barrowclough could refer the question to the Court of Appeal. Mr Adams asked that the press be asked not to publish the names of female witnesses. It was in the interests of the Crown that witnesses should not be discouraged from coining forward in these cases.

His Honor made the request to the press. Mr Adams then expressed the opinion that the court should be cleared. His Honor: I don’t think so. After the luncheon adjournment the evidence was culled. At the request of the Crown Prosecutor Ensign Coombs was allowed to sit beside the female witnesses on account of their nervousness.

The first witness, who gave her ago as 22, said that in December last she discovered she was pregnant. That was about the middle of December. She did riot go to see anyone about it at that time, but early in January she went to see Mrs Cranefield. the prisoner ir the dock, at her house in Caversham, 76 Main South road. Witness called in the afternoon. She had not known Mrs Cranefield previously. She told Mrs Cranefield her condition, and asked if she could do anything for her. She did not recollect Mrs Cranefield asking her any questions. Witness considered she had been two months’ pregnant at that time. Mrs Cranefield said she could do something. An arrangement was made that she was to return at 3 o’clock the next afternoon. On that occasion Mrs Cranefield admitted her and showed her to a front bedroom on the lpft hand going in W itness did not tako particular notice of the furniture. There was a double bed

in the room and a washstand and dressing table. Witness did not remember any conversation with Mrs Cranefield there. There w.as one window in the room with a roller blind. Witness described what took place in the room, and said that afterwards Mrs Cranefield asked her what she was prepared to pay. Witness said she could pay x. 5, and gave that amount to Mrs Cranefield, receiving in return a receipt. Witness had a miscarriage the following day, and stayed in bed for two days afterwards. She did not consult a doctor at any time about her condition. Mrs Cranefield came to see witness on the evening of the day of the miscarriage because witness sent for her. She told Mrs Cranefield what had happened, and Mrs Oranefie'd said everything was all right. Mrs Cranefield saw the miscarriage in her room. She advised witness to use a syringe. Witness went to the police station in March, and identified Airs Cranefield from among a number of other women. Cross-examined by Mr Barrowclough: After the miscarriage witness asked the woman with whom she was staying to go for Mrs Cranefield. As far as she knew when the landlady went out witness was loft in the house alone. When she was interviewed by Detective Beer he told her he knew that an il'egal ooeration had been performed upon her. Witness admitted that was so He asked her if she knew Airs Cranefield. and she admitted she did. Ho asked her if Airs Cranefield was the person who performed the operation, and she said that was so. She gave Airs Cranefield’s address, hut she could not swear positively (hat the detective had not first mentioned the number of the street to her. To his Honor: She hrd beard Mrs Cranefield’s address a long while ago. She had no indication beforehand what Airs Cranefield would charge. Air Barrowclough farther cross-examined as to witness’s identification of prisoner at the gaol. Witness had never had a child or an operation of this sort performed before. The next witness was the married woman with whom the previous witness had been boarding since before Christmas. hl.be said the previous witness told her sbe_ had had a miscarriage, and there was evidence of that in the room. She had not been too well Mr a week of a fortnight before, but she told witness, it was her stomach that was troubling her. At the request of the previous witness witness went to a- house in the Alain South road. She had an mea the number was 96. She found Airs Cranefield and told her the previous witness wanted her. She could not swear that the woman in the dock was the one who opened the door. Witness asked: Are von Airs Cranefield?” and the woman said “Yes,” and agreed to come as asked. Witness ’left the house bv herself. Later in tho evening when witness returned home she met this woman at the front door just leaving. The street door was the door into the room in which the previous witness was. The woman said. “Lhe s all right,” and witness replied, “It is better to be sure than sorry.” There was no reference to the miscarriage m her conversation with Mrs Cranefield. Witness burned it. Nothing was said to witness about treatment. ~ . , To Air Barrowclougn: In the interview with the detective she thought it was the detectives who first mentioned the name of Airs Cranefield. The third witness was a girl now in Christchurch who had been employed in an hotel in Dunedin about the beginning of the present year. Towards the end of January she discovered she was pregnant. She saw Airs Cranefield about it at either 76 or 79 Alain Soaith road. She thought it was near the end of February that she first went to Airs Crancfield’s one afternoon. Mr s Cranefield, whom she identified in court, answered the door and brought her into a front bedroom on the right-hand side going in. Witness told Airs Cranefield she ~ was pregnant and asked if she could “fix her up.” Mrs Cranefield said, ‘Wes,” and it was arranged that witness was to go back at the beginning of the week ahero was no mention of money till after it was over. She returned to Airs Cranefield one morning, and went into another bedroom this time, a bedroom on the left. She noticed a double bedstead, a washstand, and duchesse in the room. The blind was up. Witness gave an account of what was done by Airs Cranefield similar to the account given by tho first witness, witness asked how much it was. Mrs Cranefield said £5. She gave Airs Cranefield that amount, but did not get a receipt. She was in bed for a day or two afterwards. Witness told how she bad identified Mrs Cranefield at the police station. To Air Barrowclough: She went into different rooms on the occasion of her two visits to Airs Cranefield. She remembered saying in the lower court that she went into the same room. She was upset at the time, and did not know what she was saying. The detectives said they knew she had had a miscarriage, and at first she denied it. She denied that she was living with someone else in Christchurch. She had never had any operation of this sort performed on her before. Asked as to whether she had had any children, witness said she did not know what that had to do with the case. A fourth witness was a married woman, who related that in February a little girl came to her door saying that her “mummy” was ill. Witness found that her neighbour had fainted. In her neighbour’s house she saw the third witness lying in bed. Witness could see she was ill, and examined her. She did what she could to relieve her, and went hack at night and did the same.

Detective Frederick John Boer said that on March 10 last he visited 76 Main South road with Acting-detective Sneddon. The accused answered their knock. Witness told her who they were and that they had a warrant for her arrest. She invited them inside and they went into the front bedroom on the left. He read th e warrant and warned her about making a statement. Mrs Cranefield said sbe did not know the girl mentioned in the warrant. In a drawer in the duchesse he found a syringe (produced), and in a cupboard a bottle of lysol with .lysol in it and a box of cotton wool. In another drawer were three or four letters, and in the bedroom jug another letter in an envelope and a telegram with it. He produced this letter and telegram and the other letters. The bedroom was on the small side. It was well lighted, and stood back a few yards from the street and on a rise. Only the accused was at home when he arrested her. She said her husband and she occupied that room. To Air Barrowclough: There was a fireplace and a small octagonal table in the room. There was an overmantel over the

fireplace. He had not known the accused before this. A married woman living with her husband at Middlemarch was the next, witness. She gave evidence that she met Mrs Cranefield nine or 10 months ago in the street. She was not sure whether she could identify -Vlrs Cranefield or not. A woman friend at Aliddiemarch told witness she was pregnant, and witness wrote to Mrs Cranefield the letter produced. The letter asked Airs Cranefield to come up to Aliddiemarch as soon as she could, as a great friend of the writer’s would like to see her. The letter continued: “Come up as soon as possible. If you cannot come meet her at Caversham. Don’t be afraid. She will give you good money.” A short note was received in reply saying that the writer had a bad leg but would come up to Aliddiemarch the following Wednesday. This reply witness sent on to her friend. To Air Barrowclough: Witness could not say whether the woman in the dock was the one to whom she had been introduced in Princes street. The next witness, a married woman living at Aliddiemarch, was the friend to whom the last witness referred. She admitted she had leeu pregnant about four months. She told the previous witness about it. and received through her a short note which she burned. The note was signed by Mrs Cranefield. and said that the writer was to come up to Middlemarch the following Wednesday. Witness received the letter about the 7th Alarch last. Witness sent a telegram to Airs Cranefield in the name of the previous witness, saying that Airs Cranefield was expected at Aliddiemarch that Wednesday. Catherine Al‘Sweeney, senior matron at the Central Police Station, gave evidence as to the identification of the prisoner on March 12 by tho two first witnesses. Both witnesses identified her without any hesitation, Accused afterwards said. “I don’t know these girls. I never saw them before.” An hour later accused to'd witness she remembered the girls quite well. They had called together at her place. The fair girl said her mate was in trouble and wanted to know if Airs Cranefield could do anything for her. After a few days the dark girl came back, and Airs Cranefield talked to her about 20 minutes. Airs Cranefield said people often called at her place for the same thing. To Air Barrowclough: The accused was much stouter than anyone else in the line. There were seven in the line altogether. Witness never at any time advised accused to plead “guilty.” This closed the case for the Crown, and Air Barrowclough called no evidence. Air Adams, for the Crown, submitted to the jury that this was a case in which the evidence was abundantly clear. Both fills spoke quite clearly as to what had appened to them at Mrs Cranefield’s. In accused’s statement there was a clear admission that the girls came to her place. She said they came together. There was a'so the admission of a further visit from the dark girl, and the very purpose of the visit was admit!ed. When people were in tho habit of visiting a house for a certain purpose they could draw their own conclusions.

Air Barrowclough said that in justice to his client he must go into the case at some length. It was an exceedingly difficult case, and an exceedingly important one. In cases of this sort it was an offence for the girls to have such an operation performed upon them. The person who submitted to the operation was an accomplice, and such evidence must be looked upon with suspicion. It was unwise to convict on such evidence unless it was corroborated in a material way. If they believed the girls’ statement completely then his client was guilty, but before they believed the girls’ statement they had to hr satisfied that the girls’ statements were materially corroborated. The girls were buying emancipation from criminal proceedings by giving evidence. Tt might well be that the operations were performed by some intimate friend of the girls whom they desired to shield by blaming someone else. An accomplice was at any rate a person not of exemplary character, and for that reason the law thought it advisable always to look for corroboration. Corroborative evidence was some independent testimony which affected the accused by tending to connect him or her with a crime. Thev had to find not only corroboration of the fact that the operation was performed but of the fact that Mrs Cranefield performed it. Tt was the duty of the Crown to prove tho charges, beyond any possible ouestion or doubt. If there was any doubtleft in their minds it was their duty to bring in a. verdict of not guilty. Roughly, there were two separate charges. What evidence was there that Mrs Cranefield performed an operation on one of these girls? It was not sufficient for the Crown to prove that Mrs Cranefield was a reputed abortionist, though he did not admit that the Crown had shown oven that. They could not find a person guilty of being an abortionist, but only of performing an il'egal operation on a particular person. He analysed the evidence of the woman with whom one of the principal witnesses was living to show that it had no corroborative value, and drew attention to certain discrepancies. He submitted that this witness was not quite candid. The detective had very fairly advised the accused not fee make a statement.. Hie objects he found in the room were of the simplest, nature, and it indicated the straits in which the Crown was when it required to refer to such matters. What connection had any of these objects with the two girls on whom the operations had been jierformcd? The only objects tho girls could describe in the bedroom were to bo found in almost every bedroom in Dunedin. Their evidence, indeed, showed that the girls had not been in Mrs Cranefield’s bedroom at all. He stressed a contradiction in one of tho girls’ evidence as given in the lower court and in the Supreme Court. It was unfortunate, for the accused that she spoke as she did to Aliss M‘Sweeney, and. indeed, he was surprised that, after warning accused against speaking Miss Al‘Sweeney should allow her to speak as she did. Accused was under the impression she had to make some kind of explanation, and she told a He. No matter what view they took of her guilt or innocence, it. was a lie, but it was just the kind of lie a perfectly innocent person was likely to tell. She never at any time admitted guilt, of the charges against her. He claimed that there was nothing incriminating in anv of the letters except one from Middlemarch, which showed that a Mrs Cranefield had a reputation for being an abortionist. The writer of !he letter very strangely could not say whether Airs Cranefield was the person to whom she had been introduced. At the very most, the letter proved that Airs Cranefild’s house was one

where some people thought abortion was committed. What was there in those letters in any way connected with the two girls on whom the operations had been committed? The detectives had found no instrument or equipment of any incriminating kind in the house. Would they believe that a woman would undertake such risks without any mention of payment till afterwards? In conclusion, Air Barrowclough claimed that the chief witness’s evidence must be regarded with suspicion, and that it. had received no material corroboration. Mr Barrowclough concluded his address at 25 minutes to 6, and his Honor intimated that he would sum up the ease for the jury at 10 o’clock next morning. On resuming in the Supreme Court at 10 a.m. on Friday his Honor Air Justice Sim delivered his charge to the jury in the case in which Ruth Kate Cranefield was indicted on four charges of using an instrument to procure a miscarriage or of supplying an instrument for that purpose. H-s Honor told the jury that if they came to the conclusion that they ought to convict it seemed clear that accused should be convicted on the first and third counts and not on the second and fourth —that was, on rhe counts of unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure miscarriage and not on the alternative counts of supplying an instrument for that purpose. Tne story told by each girl was that the accused herself used the instrument and that the girls did not make any use of it. The jury need not trouble about the alternative charges. The charges were laid under section 221 of the Crimes Act, which enacted that everyone was liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life who unlawfully attempted to procure miscarriage. The next section made the girls who submitted to such operation liable to punishment also by seven years imprisonment with hard labour. J he position was that each of the girls in this case was liable to prosecution under this section. As counsel had pointed out, tho girls were what the law called accom plices, and it was the practice of judges to warn juries that it was not sufficient, to convict on the evidence of accomplices unless that evidence w.as corroborated in some material particular. He explained the extent, to which corroboration must go as laid down by the Court of Appeal in England in a recent case, and said that the evidence of accomplices must be confirmed not only as to the circumstances of tho crime, but also as to the identity of the prisoner. It was not sufficient mereiv to corroborate the evidence of the girl as to a miscarriage having taken place, but the corroboration must also connect the accused in some way with bringing that about. He wished to point out that there was plenty of evidence which they might treat as corroborating the evidence of each of these girls. Tile real and substantial question for them to determine was, were they satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the story told by the first girl was true? If so, then they would convict the accused on the first count. In the other case if they were satisfied that the story told bv the other girl was true they would convict on the third count. lie proceeded to review the evidence with a view to indicating how much of it was corroborative of the girls’ story. The evidence of the woman with whom the first girl lived certainly corroborated her story. It was true that this woman did not specifically identify the accused in the box with the woman who came down to her house, but the girl said that the woman who came to see her there was Mrs Cranefield. If they accepted this woman’s evidence oould they have any doubt that the woman who came to her house was Airs Cranefield? If so, that corroborated the girl’s evidence as completely as it could be corroborated short of having someone present when the operation was performed. Then there was the evidence of Detective Beer, which went to show that the girl’s description of the room in whic-h the operation was performed was correct so far as it went. It w mid be Cfuite unreasonable to expect a girl in the circumstances to remember minutely all the details of the room. They could accept the evidence of Detective Beer with regard to the position and contents of the room as corroborating the evidence of the girl. Then the- had the evidence of Aliss Al’Sweer.ey, the senior gaol matron, as to the statement accused had made to her That statement was an admission that the girl had been to her house in connection with the business of abortion and was a corroboration of the girl’s evidence. It was true, as learned counsel had pointed cut, that there was a slight discrepancy in the first girl’s evidence, but he did not think it was of any great importance. It Was for the jury to say how much importance they attached to it. His Honor next read over the second girl’s evidence and commented on the difference between a statement she made in tho lower court and her statement the previous day. ihe evidence of the neighbour who helped the girl when she was unwell did not connect the accused with the operation in any way, but went to show that the girl’s story of the operation was true. Then the evidence of Detective Beer corroborated the second girl's evidence in exactly the same way as it did that of the first. The evidence of Aliss Al'Sweeney could be treated as corroborating in a very important way the evidence of this girl. It contained the admission of accused that the girl came to her to have a miscarriage procured, that accused told her to come back, and that she did come back and remained in the house for 20 minutes. If she was not going to operate on the girl why did she tell her to come back? Why did the girl go back ? The accused’s statement to Mrs Al'Sweeney corroborated very strongly indeed the evidence of the girl. In addition, there was the evidence of the letters put in to show that accused was one regarded by people as carrying on the business of procuring abortion. His Honor read one from Port Chalmers asking the accused “to kindly do something for the hearer of tins note,” another from Maeandrew’s Bay expressing disappointment that accused had not turned up when expected, and another pencilled note which his Honor described as very disjointed. Then there was the letter ami telegram from Middlemarch, the letter asking accused to go there for the purpose of procuring an abortion. It was very significant that in this case also there was no bargain made by accused about money, and she was prepared to go to Middlemarch without any stipulation as to fee, except that she would get good money. That accused was known to people as a woman carrying on the business of an abortionist appeared from her own evidence when she told Airs M'Sweoney that people often called at her house for the same thing. Why should girls ca?l at a woman’s house for the purpose of having a miscarriage unless that was the business she was carrying on? It was for the jury to say if they

Were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the story told by the girls was substantially true. His Honor concluded his charge at 10 48 a.m., and the jury retired until 11.30 p.m , when they returned with a verdict of guilty on the first and third counts. •iris Honor remanded the prisoner for sentence. HYMAN ISAACS’ CASE. Hyman Isaacs was called on to answer th ree charges that on or about Februarv 13 last he unlawfully used an instrument to procure abortion, that he unlawfully attempted to use such an instrument, and that he conspired with iuerbert Victor Dale and Edith Alex Dixon to use such an instrument. Hi pleaded not guilty. Mr Hanlon, for accused, said he wished ■to raise the question regarding the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be tendered by the Crown. His Honor arranged to hear the matter in chambers before the resumption of the sitting in the afternoon. Tht matter was eventually admitted. Mr Hanlon freely exercised his right of challenge, and 12 jurors were stood down before the jury was empanelled. The Crown Prosecutor said that there were three counts against accused—unlawfully using an instrument with .intent to preeure a miscarriage, attempting to commit the same crime, and conspiring to commit the crime, Ihe evidence of the Crown would begin with the conspiracy. In all the circumstances of the particular case learned counsel pointed out, it was difficult, and might be impossible, to know how r far precisely the design was carried. Evidence would be given that the girl and accused Were found together in the shop under suspicious circumstances. Ihe various points which were brought out were intended to show the acts of preparation for the crime which it was alleged was intended. If ihe jury found sufficient evidence of acts of preparation to satisfy them that an attempt was to be made then they would find the prisoner guilty on ihe count of attempting. In order to bring in a verdict of guiliy on the other charge it would be necessary for the jury to be satisfied that there was not merely preparation cr conspiracy, hut that the crime was actually committed. Learned counsel went into the circumstances of the case, ana related how the detectives, after much delay, were admitted When they were searching, one of them stooped to pick up some envelopes, and accused said: “I am not such a fool as Cooper, of Wellington—to keep a diary.' 1 The reference would be plain to them. Learned counsel described the instruments which were found and proceeded to call evidence. Edith Alex Dixon said she lived with her aunt at Port Chalmers. She was 18 years of age and single. She knew Herbert Victor Dale, who was a friend of hers. She knew the accused. A month or two ago she was working at Gibson’s boot factory, and worked there up to the time when the police saw her about this matter. She had known the accused for a long time. She rang him up on the telephone at 12 o’clock on the day she was examined by Dr Evans. She asked him if he would at the shop that night, and he said "Yes.” She said she would go down, but did not name any tiniQ. She thought at the time she was pregnant. She went alone to the accused’s shop that night and found the accused there. She went into the office by the back door, but did not remember whether it was shut afterwards. She sat down on a couch and took off her overcoat. Accused came into the office with her, but she did not remember what he did. They had a conversation about dancing and skating. She told him she thought she was pregnant and asked him what he thought she ought to do. He told her to take Beecham’s Pills. She asked him because she thought that was something a married man might know. Accused was sitting on a chair while she was on the couch. He remained on the chair all the time. At abcut 8 o’clock she saw two men coming- down the right-of-way past the window where she was sitting. If there was a blind on the window it was not down. There was no light in the room, but they could see. Accused said he thought that was the - police, and she asked him not to open the door. After she saw the men she went to the front of the shop and remained standing there till the detectives came in. The accused stood there, too, doing nothing. She had not previously been in the shop or alone with accused anywhere. She was not pregnant now and never was. She went to accused because she thought she was pregnant. and accused was the only one she could ask.

Herbert Victor Dale, machinist, living at Port Chalmers, said he knew the last witness. About two months ago she told him she had an idea she was pregnant, but was not sure. He had not known the accused long. He met accused in the Arcade about February, and they spoke to each other casually. Witness told accused ha had an idea a certain person was in a certain condition and would give something to know she was out of trouble. Witness asked accused if he knew something about women’s troubles, and accused said he did. Witness did not think he mentioned the girl’s name on that occasion. Witness saw accused at accused’s shop about a fortnight later, and mentioned to him the name of the previous witness, saying he had an idea she was in trouble. Accused said he would have a yarn with her. They also spoke about boots.

Detective Frederick John Beer said that on March 13 last, in consequence of information received, he, in company with Acting Detective Roycroft and Detective Lean, went at about. 8 p.m. to the boot shop of accused at 165 Hanover street. The plan produced showed accused’s shop correctly with the exception of the “cs’lion of~one wall. When they arrived at between 10 minutes and a quarter pa«t 8 the place was in darkness. It was a light evening. Witness knocked at the door, but got no reply. He tried the door, and it was locked. He heard a muffled noire inside, and called out that it was Detective Beer, but there was no reply. Tie tried the doors and windows front and hack, but thev were all securely locked with the exception of tbs office window. It was unlocked, and he pushed it up as far as he could. There was a dilapidated lace curtain across the window, and lie could not get in because there were iron bars on the inside. >o saw a couch under the window with a white towel spread on it. He returned to the back and continued calling out to the accused to open the door, but got no response. Looking through a hack window he could see ri<hf through to Hanover street-. Go three oooa c ion« he saw accuser] pass from the back of the shoo to the office. On noousorl cairn? rieht thrmiqrli to tlie non!lory, nn*f vi'nosp flic noise f>f somethin c Lm'ng pr :rc«l down the sink

and the sound like that of a basin falling int o the sink. Witness called out to accused, “You have made enough noise now. -on may as well open the door.” Accused replied, “What’s the matter? There is nothing doing here.” Witness said, “Open the door and we will see what’s doing.” Accused said, “Wait a minute. I’ll open the door.” He removed some obstruction from the back of the door and unlocked it. Ihe evidence of Dr Evans was taken after * lo l unc heon adjournment, as he had obtained an urgent summons. He stated that- he had examined the girl at 10 p.m. on 1 j!e day of the alleged offence and had round her to be pregnant. Part of her under garments was wet. The instruments handed to him by Mr Adams he declared to be male catheters, which could lie used for purposes of abortion. They would require skill- in use, and would ordinarily be used by medical men. Previously he had examined a woman at the request of the police and had found her pregnant. The doctor gave evidence that neither Chiefdetective Bishop nor Detective Palmer was fit. owing to illness, to attend the court. Mi’ ITanlon asked no questions. Continuing hi- evidence. Detective Beer repeated the evidence he had given in the lower court regarding what transpired when ho entered the house. . The accused, who had been looking rather indifferent during the morning, assumed a disturbed appearance during the detective’s evidence, and made unsuccessful attempts to attract his co-unseTs attention. There .was no cross-examination. Detective Lean gave evidence on corroborative lines. Catherine M'Sweeney, police matron gave evidence (hat the girl’s under garments were found to bo damp when sh« was examined. The deposition of Detective Palmer was read to the jury. It related to the previous finding of a pregnant woman in accused’s company. This closed the case for the Crown No evidence was called for (he defence Addressing (he jury, Mr Adams said it wag abundantly clear that the girl and the accused had been found under circumstances of great suspicion. Probably a defence would be raised that the girl' was there for some innocent purpose and for that reason the Crown had shown that a married and pregnant woman had been touna in Isaacs company previously. Mr Hanlon said that the counsel for the Crown must have been hard put to it to say something i n support of his case when he finished his remarks under one and ahaff minutes. His learned friend like the jury, must realise that there was not a fraction of evidence against the accused Tu , U fi! lh ? , dut .Y the Crown to prove that the girl w-as present for a wrong purpose hut not a vestige of proof of the sort had been submitted. It wa s not for the defence to prove that she was there for a proper purpose. In regard to the question of conspiracy, it was alleged that the accused and the witness Dale had had a conversation and that the accused had performed an illegal operation as a result J ut what evidence had the Crown to make them believe that there had been a conspiracy? Was it not reasonable to ask that the Crown should bring forward some evidence to show that there had been a conspiracy? AH that Dale said was that he had remarked to accused, “I believe a girl’s m trouble, and I’d give a lot to get her out of 'trouble.’’ That was all that was said at the time, and later, when Dale visited Isaacs, he mentioned the girl’s name and the place she worked. Accused said, “I’ll have a yarn to her.” It might be that ho had intended to do something to her. submitted counsel, but there was no evidence of that intention. Another question the jury had to determine was that an operation had been performed by the accused on the girl with intent to procure a miscarriage. There was no evidence that the operation had been performed. Yne best person to give such evidence was the person on whom the operation was alleged to have been performed, and the jury knew that in such cases the girl was brought forward to give evidence against the man. But when the Crown brought this girl forward she did not say that an ore rat ion had been performed or that there was an arrangement to make any attempt to perform an operation. Even if there had been proof that the man was an abortionist, counsel proceeded, it. was not necessarily ’proved that he was intending to practise On this girl. The police said that Isaacs could be heard walking backwards and forwards and that there had been a noise of something being poured down the sink. When they entered they found a solution of Jeyes Fluid in the sink. If the fluid had been used on the girl, surely there would have been mention by the doctor Or the police matron of its pungent odour about her clothes. There was also no evidence to show that any steps had been taken to carry out the operation, and counsel continued to ridicule the production of certain instruments by the Crown, stating that they had brought along every instrument—from the wires used for cleaning the sink to anasma nozzles—• and every rag they could find about the

place. That did not prove one thing. He supposed, as to the catheters, that similar instruments were to be found in every house. In conclusion, Mr Tlanlon said that the Crown had not produced any evidence that would in the slightest degree justify a conviction. The judge, summing up, said that it

was clear, to start with, that the girl was pregnant at the time of the alleged offence. It was also clear from the evidence of Detective Beer that a

good deal more must have been going on than the girl admitted, tut that did not justify the jury in coming to the conclusion that there had been an offence. The girl wa3 called as a Crown witness, and if she was not telling the truth, the Crown’s case must suffer. Unless the Crown could make out a case proving that the girl was not telling the truth, the jury, despite the strong suspicion that they might have, should not allow their imaginations to decide on what had actually taken place. The conditions were certainly very sus-

picious, but, even if preparations were being made to operate, it was hardly likely that the operation would he gone on with while the police were at the door knocking for admission. The girl said that nothing was

done, and that, when she told Isaacs she was pregnant, he had only advised her to take Beecham’s pills. And, apart from suspicion, there was nothing in Detective Beer’s evidence to show otherwise. There was the evidence of Dr Evans and tho police matron, but it, apart from adding

to the suspicions, did not carry the case for the Crown much further. If a man had the intention to commit a crime, and if he did an act with that intent, he might

be convicted under the Act, hut the evidence of the intention charge did not seem to be any better than that of the actual commission. The evidence of Detective Beer did not make it any stronger than in the other charge. There was no evidence to justify a conviction. The judge briefly reviewed the evidence on the charge of conspiracy, which, he said, depended on the witness Dale, remarking that it was for the jury to decide. After a retirement of half an hour the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty.