ALLEGED USE OF CHLOROFORM

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22520, 30 September 1938, Page 20

ALLEGED USE OF CHLOROFORM

CHARGE OF CRIMINAL INTENT MAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL A contention, that there was no evidence of the offence alleged by the police was made in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr C. S. Thomas, counsel for John Stuart Jarman, who was charged with attempting to cause a person to be affected by chloroform, with intent to commit a crime. The Magistrate (Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M.) formally ruled against Mr Thomas, saying that it was a matter for a Judge's ruling. Jarman, who pleaded ■ not guilty, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.

"I must say that I am at a loss to understand this charge," said Mr Thomas, after evidence had been taken. "There is no evidence of the offence alleged." The essence of such a charge was the intention; and the evidence showed that there was no intention by the accused to do anything else except to try whether a bottle contained chloroform. "Surely this is an obvious case of assault," said counsel.

I Mr Levvey: You are asking me to give a very big r*uling. You may get the honourable Judge to take your view. I am not altogether disagreeing; but I do not think it is a matter for me to decide. John Faulks Landreth, medical practitioner, of 2 Macmillan avenue, Cashmere, said that ne parked his car in his garage about 7.15 p.m. on the evening of September 19. The garage door was left open. In the back of the car were two bags; one contained chloroform and ether and appliances for using them. The next morning, about 9 o'clock, he found the car to be missing. On the morning of September 21 he saw his car at the police station. A bottle of chloroform was then missing. Witness identified a bottle produced in Court as similar to the one f he discovered to be missing.- In the bottle produced witness would say there was a little less chloroform than in the bottle in the car. Witness also missed a rag from the car. Witness identified a hammer produced in Court as similar to one missed from the car. Woman's Evidence . A woman gave evidence that on her way home late in the evening she noticed a car by the footpath with the door open and the engine running. As witness drew level with the car a young man came out of the drive on her left, and said, "By jove, its muddy here." Witness just glanced at hin-. and walked past about three steps. The man grabbed her round the neck with one hand, and with the other he placed something like a pad, with something sweet and sickly on it, under her nose. It was soft, like the v rag produced in Court. Witness bit the man's hand; and ne moved the hand with the pad further up witness's face. Witness struggled a bit, and called for help. The man did not let go till he saw lights goon in a nearby house. Witness called for help three or four times. After the man had let witness go, he said, 'What a row." He got into the car, which was driven away. In a statement, read by Detective K. H Watt the accused described the taking of two cars in the city. One of these was abandoned in Cashmere, and another car taken. The accused s statement added that he found a bottle in the car taken in Cashmere. He could give no explanation of having assaulted a woman and having tried the chloroform on her. He had no intention of using the bottle when he took it. * . Corroborative evidence was given by Detective C. P. Burns Bail was allowed in self £3OO, and one surety of £3OO.