ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 78, 22 May 1911, Page 5

ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION.

A PECULIAR POSITION. By Telegraph. —Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. At the Supreme Court yesterday, Edward Reynolds ay.it Annie Petersen were charged with using an instrument for unlawful purposes on a girl seventeen years of age between the 14th and 25th of .March. Reynolds was also charged with unlawfully supplying an instrument knowing it to have been in tended for unlawful purposes. Mr A. L. Ilerdman appeared for Annie Petersen and Mr. T. M. Wilford for Reynolds. Both counsel applied to have the cases tried separately, as otherwise their defence would be prejudiced. Mr. T. Neave (Crown Prosecutor; opposed the application, and His Honor retired for a few minutes to consult Mr. Justice Chapman on the point. When His Honor the Chief Justice returned to the bench he announced that he would not grant the application, but, if so desjred. he would reserve the point, for the Court of Appeal should it .be necessary. • , t \ ’gW Both counsel availed themselves -of this permission. s . His Honor directed the court to ha cleared and ordered that particulars of the case he not published. During the hearing the point arose concerning the necessity for corroboration of the girl's story. Mr. Ilerdman said that the case, as shaped by the Crown, did not disclose any evidence which corroborated the story of the principal witness, who was an accomplice. There was no corroboration as to the actual perpetration of the deed. Counsel proceeded to quote authorities ou this point. Mr. Wilford contended, quoting ‘‘Russell ou Crimes,” page 228(1, that it hid long been adopted as the general rule of the practice that the testimony of an accomplice ought to receive confirmation, and that unless it he c'orrnlioralcd in some material part by unimpeachable evidence, the presiding judge ought to advise the jury to acquit the prisoner. To adjudge the defendant guilty in a paternity rase was impossible under our law .without, -, corroborative evidence, and therefore this case could not he dealt with except by acquittal. Mr. Neave combatted the point raised. His Honor upheld the contention; and directed the jury that it was their dniv to bring in a verdict of not guilty. He had to put aside his personal feelmeu in til is matter. He assumed the girl's story to he true, but notwithstanding that onr law was such that in (his class of crime where the girl herself was a participant voluntarily there must he some corroboration of her story, and lie did not think it would lie safe for lb > jury to bring in anv other verdict linn that of not guilty. The girl might have a civil remedy and her parents might I)' 1 able in sue for seduction and might call Mrs. Petersen, who would he hound io give evidence. If he was wrong Ihr Court of Appeal would re-arrest -V----fendant. and. if umper, would order a new trial, His Honor was very sorry considering the circumstances, but ns a judge lie must carry out the law. The jury acted in accordance with ill' l direction and found a verdict of noi guilty. Air. Neave will move for a new trial. “Nolle prosequi'’ was entered in the oilier chargp.