Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SECOND TRIAL

ABORTION CHARGE MARRIED WOMAN FOUND NOT GUILTY (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, October 26. Gertrude Grace Taylor, a married woman, of Christchurch, was acquitted on charges of unlawfully using an instrument to procure an abortion on three occasions in her second trial at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury. A jury had disagreed after a retirement of four hours at the first trial on October 20. Mr A. W. Brown prosecuted and Mr Hardie Boys, of Wellington, appeared for accused. The case proceeded along similar lines to those of the previous trial, the only new evidence being that of Agnes Burns, • a married woman, who was convicted at the previous hearing on October 20 when she and Mrs Taylor were on trial. The danger of allowing outside interest in the subject of abortion to influence the jury was emphasized again by Mr Justice Northcroft. Counsel for the defence, Mr Hardie Boys, said that the case for the Crown rested largely on the evidence of accomplices and warned the jury that on the advice of judicial authorities this evidence should be regarded with suspicion. Not a small part of the campaign against abortion, said Mr Hardie Boys, had been directed against juries and the jury system. A book had been published which, by its title, was directed to juries. It was said that in abortion cases juries did not convict and unless they did “this and that would happen.” The view appeared to be that accused had only to be be put in the dock and it was the duty of the jury to convict. But the jury was not in the court on a heresy hunt or as a social welfare committee and unless the evidence proved accused to be guilty a verdict of guilty should not be returned. His Honour, in summing up, said that the jury must not be influenced in making a decision by outside interest and agitation about abortion, nor by the opinion of the presiding judge or counsel on either side. It was indeed true that the public was anxiously interested in the subject of. abortion. It was proper for those interested in social questions to address themselves earnestly to the problem of abortion, but that was not the duty of the jurj’, who were to decide the case on the evidence. After analysing the evidence his Honour said that the subject of abortion was an uneasy one for many people and because of its prevalence there was a danger of juries' being seduced from their duty. He reminded the jury that if there was any danger to the jury system it was not from outside, but from the juries themselves, who were bound on oath to decide a case on the evidence.. The jury retired for about 45 minutes and on returning the foreman said that on the evidence accused was found not ‘ guilty. —

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19371028.2.124

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 23342, 28 October 1937, Page 16

Word Count
485

SECOND TRIAL Southland Times, Issue 23342, 28 October 1937, Page 16

SECOND TRIAL Southland Times, Issue 23342, 28 October 1937, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert