THE INVERCARGILL SENSATION.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume V, Issue 536, 27 August 1897, Page 2

THE INVERCARGILL SENSATION.

By Telegraph.—Per Press Aesociation.

Invkhcahoill, August 25.

At the Police Court to-day, Richard Williamson Hall, solicitor, was charged with procuring James Torrance, medical practitioner, to administer to Caroline Mathews, wife of a solicitor (who bad been living apart from her), a noxious drug with intent to procure miscarriage. Mrs Matthews was also charged with allowing the drug to be administered. Dr Torrance, the first witness, stated that about September, 1895, Hall told him his housekeeper was nuirnts and asked witness to assist her out of her trouble. He replied that he did not care to have anything to do with the matter. About a fortnight later Hall again saw him and advanced reasons why something should be done, and witness then consented to see Mrs Matthews, who told him that a medical man who had attended her in her previous confinement had advised her that it would be dangerous for her to have a child. Witness gave her two pills. Subsequently an understanding was arrived at that she should leave Invercargill for the Bluff to secure privacy, and at the boarding-house of Mrs Gorman he gave her a liquid extract and some pills. On one of his visits Mrs Gorman would not allow him to enter the patient's room, and he telephoned to Hall that exposure was imminent. Hall came down and led witness to believe that the matter was settled satisfactorily with Mrs Gorman. He visited Mrs Matthews in the evening and found the abortion completed. Dr Torrance, cross-examined by Mr Solomon, said that when Hall referred to “ exposure,” he might have meant that lie did not want the people of Invercargill to know of his relationship with Mrs Matthews He did not suggest to Hall to go to medical men in Invercargill to have a drug administered illegally, but to consult as to her condition. He would not deny that Hall had told him she was suffering from symptoms of illness in connection with her condition. Hall represented that it wa3 for tha sake of her health that the altered state should be produced. Nothing was done at that time. At the second interview witness did not think Hall said yiere was a liklihood of tho event taking place naturally, though he would not deny the suggestion that he did. Hall stated that she had gone to the Bluff so that if it could occur she could be attended by a medical man. It was a well-recognised fact, and he knew it perfectly well, that in the early stages, unless a woman was going to abort naturally, the drug administered wa3 useless to bring about the result. It would assist nature, and benefit the patient's health. At no period during his connection with the matter did he give any drug to procure abortion. Mrs Gorman, at whose boardinghouse at the Bluff the offence which is the basis of the charges is said to have been committed, was examined. She gave her version of the affair at length, stating that she got a cheque for £5 irom Hall for being “ good to the little woman,” and also an 1.0. U. for £95, but this she alleged Hall afterwards took from her and accused her of blackmailing. She denied that she gave information to the police. They came to her. This Day.

Hall and Mrs Matthews were committed for trial, Mr I’oynton, S.M., saying he would not take the responsibility of doing anything else.