NO CASE GIVEN FOR DEFENCE

Southland Times, Issue 23498, 3 May 1938, Page 8

NO CASE GIVEN FOR DEFENCE

ACCUSED REFUSES TO SPEAK JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 2. After a trial in which the accused was not represented by counsel and presented no case for the defence, Otto Robert Lahman, aged 50, was acquitted by the jury in the Supreme Court at Wellington today of unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. The offence was alleged to have been committed at Wellington on December 10. The accused was discharged. The accused pleaded not guilty and asked for counsel to represent him. In answer to Mr Justice Reed, he said the reason why the arrangements for him to be represented had not been made sooner was that he had had "financial difficulty with Sievwright.” Lahman told his Honour the reason he had not engaged counsel or applied for counsel to be assigned to him sooner was that he had thought Mr Sievwright would stand by him. His Honour remarked that perhaps Mr Sievwright would take the case if he were assigned to it then. “Will you take it,” he asked Mr A. B. Sievwright, who had been a bystander in the Court and who had stepped forward at the mention of his name from the Bench.

“I have no preparation,” Mr Sievwright replied. “I informed the accused some two months ago what the position would be. He had been on bail and has made no steps to comply with the conditions I imposed. About a week ago I told him he must take other steps.” “If the accused does not take trouble to take these steps it is his own fault,” said his Honour in commenting on the desirability of the accused being represented by counsel because of the type of evidence that was to be produced. However, I will look after the case as well as I can.” Evidence for the prosecution, which occupied about three hours, was heard, the witnesses including the young woman upon whom the operation was alleged to have been performed, . a Chinese with whom she had been living and who said he had arranged for the operation and was' present while it was performed, a second Chinese upon whose premises the miscarriage was said to have occurred and who had the woman sent to hospital, a European who was alleged to have been the gobetween between the first Chinese and the accused, Dr P. P. Lynch who gave ‘expert evidence, and a detective. The accused declined to question any of the witnesses and declined also to give evidence himself. “Don’t be foolish, there is a certain amount of evidence against you,”, the judge warned him. “I have said I am not guilty” the accused said. The accused declined an invitation to address the jury. After a retirement of 50 minutes, the jury returned to ask questions on evidence, and both the young woman and one of the Chinese were recalled to explain a point. The latter was questioned by the foreman of the jury, and affirmed that he was present when the operation was performed by the accused. After another retirement of a few minutes, the jury returned and was asked its verdict. “Well, on the evidence, not guilty,” said the foreman.