THE RUSSELL CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6122, 8 March 1898, Page 3

THE RUSSELL CASE.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THIS DAY. The precincts of the Magistrate's Court were thronged this afternoon on the occasion ef the hearing of the charge against Dr Russell. A large number of women were present outside the Court, of whom only one obtained admission. The case was heard before Mr R. Beetham, S.M. Mr Stringer appeared for the Crown, and Mr Joynt for the defence. Mr Stringer said that the charge against the accused was one of procuring a miscarriage with Kate Louisa Scott. He admitted that the deceased woman was an accomplice in the illegal act. The uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice was not generally taken as conclusive in itself, but Mr Stringer quoted the remarks of Lord Ellenborough; in Regiria v. Jones, to show that at a preliminary examination such as the present one the accused might be convicted upon such evidence. He was unable to give corroborative evidence in the true sense of the word, but he would prove that the deceased had a miscarriage shatfely before bey death; agcl would leave other questions to *a' higher tribunal, : He. called . Henry Castriot De Renzi, a duly qualified medical practitioner, who deposed that he attended the deceased on Febi 17. On Feb. 25 she became much worse, and died on the following d.ay, the immediate cause of death being sflpfciocemia. From witness's own observations it was impossible to say whether or not a recent miscarriage had. occurred. There was nothing in her symptoms which was inconsistent with a recent miscarriage. To Mr Joynt : It was quite impossible to form an opinion. Dr Hacon advised that a Justice of the Peace should be called in, but witness did boJj <Jq so. Apart fpom information reeoJYod from the- deceased °E others, he found that thfl deceased was suffering from acute peritonitis. To Mr Stringer : It was in consequence of Tfbat d?9?&§ed had told hi.m that witness endorsed T)e Hacon's advice. Deceased was not rational on the morning of Feb. 25. She was in a semi'Cottscious condition off and on from Feb". 17, bUfc w"a3 foirly rational when roused by speaking to he*. To Mv Joynt : Witness was not present at the death-bed statement. The semiconscious condition of deceased was the result of gejytie'ffiinitt acting throughout the nervous system. Her periods of lucidity did not last for atiy great length of time. Witness was present at the post-mortem examination. Observed that the membranes of the brain were considerably involved. The dura mater was adherent" to the skull-cap, and one of the other' membranes was adherent to the brain itself. Attributed the condition of the brain to inflammation arising from the septicaemia. The lymph produced by the inflammation caused the adhesion. The condition of the brain as disclosed at the post-mortem would account for the semiconscious condition in which witness found deceased. ' Charles Morton Anderson, a duly qualified medical practitioner, deposed that Kate Louisa Scott had called to see him at the latter end of January, and asked him to do something, which he declined. (Mr Joynt here objected, but was over-ruled). Witness made no examination of deceased on -that occasion^ Saw he next on Sunday, Febi 13. ». She was then in bed' at her father's house. • She .was' suffering from acute, peritonitis, (n consequence of what deceased told him, witness made a thorough 'examination of deceased, and found evidence of a recent miscarriage; At the request of Dr Hacon and de-i ceased, witness removed some placental tissue. The miscarriage must have taken; place within a few days of Feb. 13 ; he could not name the date exactly. It was quite possible that it occurred on Feb. 8. To Mr Joynt : On Feb. 13 septic poisoning was developed. Henry Wedderburn Bishop, S.M., de-, posed that on Feb. 18 Kate Louisa Scott' made a deposition before him. Was then: satisfied by the evidence of Dr de Renzij that deceased was not likely to re-' cover. Identified the deposition produced. The accused was nob present in the first instance of taking the deposition, but. directly witness realised the nature of the charges thereiu, he instructed Detective Benjamin to arrest the accused, and to bring him to where Kate Louisa Scott was lvinsr, for the purposes firstly of identifica-

tion, and secondly that the deposition might be re-swora in his presence. Accused was arrested, a^d brought into the girl's room. Asked Kace Louisa Scott if she knew the person standing there. She said, "Yes, it is Dr RusseU. )r ' -Witness th6n asked her if accused was the person mentioned in the deposition as having used a certain instrument. The deceased replied that he was. Witness then took the depositions from Mr Martin, clerk of the Court, and read it slowly and distinctly, and deceased again swore to its truth. The accused said to witness, " Will you ask her whether the saw the instrument?'' Witness replied that there was no necessity for that, as she had already stated in her deposition that she did not see- it. The accused then asked whether he could examine her medically, but witness could not see his way to allow that, except, perhaps, in the presence of a medical man. Accused felt her pulse, examined her tongue, and tapped her a few times on the abdomen. He asked what doctor was attending her, and was told Dr Do Eenzi. Before going into the room witness explained to the accused" the nature and gravity of the charge, and his reason for having accused present. The accused could have asked deceased any questions he chose. In the judgment of ■ witness, deceased was perfectly rational i when making and confirming her depositions. From his experience at deathbeds, ;he thought that the deceased was extremely coherent. . . Mr Stringer here handed in the" deposition of Kate Louisa Scott. William Henry Symes, a duly qualified practitioner, detailed the- results of the post-mortem examination made by him. To Mr Stringer: On Feb. 18, it was very improbable that the state of her brain affected her intellect to such a tegree as to affect the validity of her statement. By validity witness meant fhat deceased was responsible for what she aaicl. Bttt it was possible, judging from what he saw, that the mind was affected on Feb. 18. To Mr Joynt r The dura mater of the bcain was extremely adherent to the skull J cap. ! [Left sitting.l