SENT FOR TRIAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17130, 4 September 1926, Page 8

SENT FOR TRIAL

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST

WOMAN. STARTLING EVIDENCE. SEVERAL WOMEN IN BOX. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night, Mr. E. Page, S.M., after considering the objection of Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson, counsel for the defence, to the suppression of the names of girl witnesses in the murder charge against Elizabeth Ann YVylie, alias Neville, agreed to allow them to bo published on the ground that the feelings of the witnesses .must not be allowed to outweigh consideration for the a.rcused.

On the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Stevenson said the only submission that the defence Would make was that there no ,legal evidence to send the accused forward on a murder charge. Mr. Page, S.M. : Counsel for the defence, has pressed me to give a ruling as to Whether the depositions taken on the abort-ion charge are admissible on the murder charge. If it were necessary for me to express my option on tins important and difficult question, I should do so, but I do not -consider it necessary. This is not a trial, but an inquiry.' I hj|ve merely to ascertain in terms o£ statute, as to whether there is sufficient, evidence to put the accused on her trial for an indictable offence. It is >clenr that the depositions are admissible on the abortion charge, but whether they are admissible on the charge of murder must be decided by another tribunal.

Mr. Stevenson: Is there any particular offence you are sening her forward on?

Mr. Page: I iiiul there is evidence to justify me sending her forward on the charge of abortion. Mr. Stevenson: Is she committed on the charge of abortion only? Mr. Page: I send her 'forward on an indictable offence. She could be charged with abortion, and possibly with two other charges, murder or manslaughter, i Bail in the sum of £3OO, with two sureties of £l5O each, was renewed. Three further charges against accused, after hearing the evidence, were, adjourned. The case presented sensational features and the court was again cleared. The general trend of the evidence was that accused had performed illegal operations on several Women, single and married, in each case charging a fee of £2O.