SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3782, 7 September 1926, Page 67

SUPPRESSION OF NAMES.

WELLINGTON, September 3. The charge ef murder against Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Nevill, aged 49 years, in respect of the death of Elsie Davis, a married woman, on July 11, was continued today. Mr Stevenson, for the accused, referred to the suppression of the names of girls called as witnesses. He said there were serious Interests in another direction than that of these girls—those of the accused. As the result of the name of one of the gilds being published before the suppression order was made, the defence had received information about her which would be of the greatest assistance later on. Mr P. S. K. Macassey, for the Crown, said the witnesses could have no motive in giving false evidence. It was against their own interests to give evidence at all. Mr Stevenson said it had always been one of the principles of British justice than an accused person should be given every opportunity, and that the proceedings be taken In the open light of day.' Mr Stevenson also again raised the point that the dying woman’s depositions were taken on an abortion charge, not on one of murder. Mr E. Page, in replying, said he had admitted the depositions to prove other charges that could be laid, and which fell within the case in the Supreme Court. He had not only the question of murder to consider. but whether there was any other indictable ofTence on which accused could be sent for trial. Mr rage, after considering the objection of Mr Stevenson, agreed to allow the names of the witnesses to be published on the ground that the feelings of the witnesses must not be allowed to ontweigh consideration for the accused. On the conclusion of the evidence Mr Stevenson said the only submission the defence would make was that there was no legal evidence to send accused forward on • murder charge. Mr Page: Counsel for the defence has pressed me to give a ruling whether the depositions taken on, the abortion charge are admissible on the murder charge. If Jt were necessary for me tx> express my opinion on this important and difficult question I should do so, but I do not con* sider it necessary. This is not a trial, but an inquiry. I have merely to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on her trial for an Indictable offence. It is clear that the depositions are admissible on the abortion charge, but whether they are admissible on a charge of murder must be decided by another tribunal. . t _ Mr Stevenson: Is there any particular Offence you are sending her forward on? Mr Pag*'- I find there is evidence te Justify my sending her forward on a charge of abortion. Mr Stevenson: Is she committed on the Charge of abortion only? Mr Page: I aend her forward on an Indictable offence. She could be charged with abortion, and poasibly with two other charges—murder or manslaughter. Bail in the sum of 1300. with two MM* Mas of £l5O each was renewed.