CHARGE OF MALPRACTICE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3662, 20 May 1924, Page 10

CHARGE OF MALPRACTICE.

RE TRIAL OF W. M. WILKINSON. Yv illiarn Michael Wilkinson was on the 12th charged or the second time before his Honor Mr Justice Read and a jury of 12 with haying, about January 29, supplied a noxious thing with intent to procure abortion. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Crown and Mr Hav for the accused. Mr Adams said the case was neither complicated nor difficult. The facts were exceedingly simple. The accused was charged upon two counts in the one indictment. The first count was with supplying and the second with intent to supply. By a noxious thing was meant a thing calculated to produce a certain effect. The evidence would be very clear, and he thought the jury would find that there was no question that the pills supplied were noxious within the meaning of the statute. The Crown Prosecutor then went on to relate how a letter from a man in the country had got into the hands of R. E. Wilkinson and had been handed on to the nolien The police sent it to the accused, and a box of pills was despatched from the accused’s shop to a man in the country, the value of the 11 pills would be about 3s, and the price received for them was £l. tin the facts there could be no doubt iri the mind of the jury that the pills in question were not only noxious, but that they came from the shop of accused in the Arcade. Furthermore, there could be no question as to the purpose for which these pills were intended. It wag not necessary for the jury to be satisfied that the accused had none the whole of the thing himself. In the case of persons who committed a crime the law went the length of saying “Anybody who procures, or counsels, another to commit a crime is himself a party to that crime.” His Honor requested that the press would not publish the name of the girl. The Crown Prosecutor then proceeded to call evidence on the same lines as that given at the first trial. Mr Hay, in addressing tho jury, said it had to be satisfied that the drug was a noxious drug. It appeared that it was a drug that might procure abortion, but was not very likely to do so, and the jury Was invited to find that whoever supplied the drug knew that it was intended to be used in the direction indicated. A charge of this kind must be proved by the Crown, and in accordance with that it was the duty of the jury to hearken to the evidence and act conscientiously according to the evidence. He maintained that the case for the Crown had not been proved. The jury had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had personally supplied these drugs or that he was a party to their being supplied. 'There was not a tittle of evidence that he had personally Supplied the drugs. There were two points in the case—first, as to the letter being put under the accused’s door, and second as to drugs being found in his shop, about which counsel was not going to bother —- they were only ordinary drugs such as were found in a chemist’s shop. The other point to which he wished to refer was whether Wilkinson came into contact with the case. The letter had been put under his door on a Sunday night, and counsel submitted that if was no argument to say that a man would put money into an envelope and put it under a door on a Sunday night. There was a reasonable doubt whether the £1 note had ever reached Wilkinsan at all. To avoid trouble a chemist would have taken a few pills out of stock and sent them away. The fact that the pills were seftt did not remove the fact that the jury was bound to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. So far as the label was concerned counsel supposed that there were thousands like in (n Dunedin. It was admitted that the writing was not Wilkinson’s writing, and if he were an innocent man it would not be in hi* writing, and if he were guilty it might, or might not. be in his writing. Another person had written the label. Everything went to show that this man had no knowledge of the matter at all. Until the jury found that the £1 note came to him he could not be convicted. His Honor, in summing up, said the jury had to be satisfied that the pills were likely to procure abortion, because that constituted a noxious thing. He read the evidence of Dr Lynch, and commented on it. He also referred to the evidence of Dr Evans, who. he said, had gone further than Dr Lynch. The evidence of the two medical men went directly to show that these pills were a noxious thing. The point which the jury had to decide was whether or not it had been brought home that the accused was the person who had supplied the pills. There was no reason why M'Grath should make a statement not in accordance with fact. His Honor, reviewing the evidence further, said all these sort of things were found in accused’s shop. The jury retired at 3 p.m. and returned at 4.5 p.m., the Foreman stating that they did not think that the accused had personally received the letter and did not know of the despatch of the parcel. The jury asked for direction. His Honor said all he could direct the jury was that if it was satisfied that the onlv reasonable inference from the circumstances was that the accused knew of the letter, and despatched the parcel it should find him guilty; otherwise it should acquit him. The Foreman said the only course open to them, under the circumstnces, was to find the accused not guilty. They could not agree that the accused knew of the letter going to his shop. There was no evidence that he had personally received it, and there was no evidence to show that he liad made the parcel up and knew it was sent out of the shop. His Honor: If that is your opinion you can only return a verdict of not guilty._ The jury formally returned a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged.