GAOL FOR WOMAN

Waikato Times, Volume 123, Issue 20639, 28 October 1938, Page 8

GAOL FOR WOMAN

SUMMING-UP CRITICISED DISAGREEMENT WITH JUDGE COUNSEL’S DISSATISFACTION (By Teiegraprt.—Press Association) WELLINGTON. Friday Three years’ hard labour was imposed by Mr Justice Quilliam in the Supreme Court to-day on Marjorie Pickering (42 , found guilty by a jury on two charges of unlawfully using ar- instrument with intent to procure miscarriage. Mr Ongley, for the prisoner, suggested that sentence should be postponed until the judge had had an opportunity of considering an application Mr Ongley wishes to make concerning the judge's directions to the jury. Mr Justice Quilliam: “I can see nothing wrong with my summing-up to the jury. Mr Ongley said if the prisoner were sentenced and if the matter went to the Court of Appeal she might serve seven or eight months and then be feund not guilty. There was a very good reason why the Court's justice should be jealous of the liberties of the people. There was a spirit rampant in the world to-day that people had no rights. Preservation of Rights His Honour: It is to preserve those rights that sentences are inflicted. Mr Ongley asked the Court, as a British Court, to be absolutely jealous of the interests of the people. His Honour: The Court is quite competent to look after that. Mr Ongley outlined the nature of the submissions he wished to make regarding the directions to the jury at the trial and also suggested that the judge should say what was the meaning of the verdict. There were two charges against the prisoner and the jury had returned one verdict of guilty. Did that mean guilty of onlv one charge, and if so, which, or did ii mean guilty of both? His Honour said he was satisfied with the perfect regularity of the trial. The application to postpone sentence would be dismissed. Mr Ongley, addressing the Court on the matter of sentence, said the prisoner had the support and upbringing of a family cast upon her for a long time and that apparently she had done it well. She was not *the Instigator of the offences but had been sought by other people. Outburst by Accused His Honour: How did thev know where to find her? Mr Ongley: 1 gm not aware how they knew but there is no suggestion that she approached these people in any way. His Honour: She will be sentenced only for the crime she committed. When counsel went on to sav the jury and public took the view that people who instigated a crime were free. His Honour said he should address that complaint to the Legislature, not to him. When sentence was imposed the accused cried: “What about my children?” and was assisted weeping from the dock.