FOUND GUILTY

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 64, 9 December 1926, Page 10

FOUND GUILTY

> ON A SERIOUS CHARGE CASE AGAINST MRS. WYLIE STRONG RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Nevill, who had previously been tried on a charge of using au instrument, or other means, ou a married woman, with intent to procure a miscarriage, but of winch the jury disagreed appeared before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supremo Court yesterday, to face three other charges of a similar nature One of these referred to an operation alleged to have been performed on Norah Cochram ou or about Juy' 12. 1926. another one allgeed to have been performed ou Muriel Herlihy oh or about November 4, 1924, while the third charge referred to an alleged operation on Ella Sylvia Rush on or about June 21, 192 C. The accused, who entered n plea of -not guilty, was represented by Mr. T. M Wilford, with him Mr. J. F. B. Stephenson, while Mr. P. S. K. Maeassey (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the .prosecution. Two Years Ago. The first witness called was Muriel Herlihy, who told the Court how she had gone to Mrs. Nevill’s bouse at Lyall Bay. where an operation wus performed by' the accused. After the operation she had been told by M'.s. Nevill that Mrs. Wilson would look after her. She then ut to Mrs. Wilson’s house in Owen Street, where she stayed tor about a week. While she was there, a miscarriage occurred. Cross-examined by Mr. 'Wilford, witness stated that she did not volunteer information to the police the first time they went to see her. After some time the police gave her to understand that she would not be fouclied by the law. She could not recognise Mrs. Nevill until the case was first / opened io the Magistrate’s Court. Until September, 1926, witness did not know accused’s name. She considered, however, that she would have known her had she passed her in the street. .Lewis Mitchell O’Shea, who said that he had been responsible for the condition of the previous witness, stated that he had paid either .£3O or £32 tn a Mrs. Hargreaves. Elizabeth Hargreaves said that, as tho result of something told her by O’Shea, she went to 150 Queen’s Drive, “taw Mrs. Nevill. and asked her if she could do anything, for Miss Herlihy. She paid Mrs. Nevill <£3o. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevenson, witness admitted that she could rot swear that the accused was the woman with whom she had had these transactions These took place about two rears ago, but she could not give any exact dates. Norah Cochram related “how she bad visited Mrs. Nevill, who performed an operation upon her; as a result of which a miscarriage occurred. Cross-examined. by Mr. Wilford, witness stated she visited Mrs. Nevill’s bouse five times in all. When she made ' st statement to the police'at the I üblic Hospital, no promise of pardon had been given her. Mr. Wilford: Naturally. You did not think at the time that it was a crime?— "No, I did not.”

Jlr. Wilford; Yes, I had expected that answer.

Witness: Wei], why did you ask the question ? Erie Ernest Colvin slated that be was responsible for Miss Coehram’s condition. He related how he had visited Mrs. Nevill, paying her £25. Mrs. Nevill said that she would attend to Miss Cochram immediately. Medical Evidence. Dr. William H. Johnson stated that he bad examined Miss Cochram at his surgery on July 3. On seeing her three weeks later at her residence, witness had reason to believe that she had been interfered with. Cross-examined, witness, told Mr. Wilford that there were many methods of producing abortion. He Could not state definitely that Miss Coehram’s condition had been produced by means of an instrument. Dr. Robert T. Austin also gave medical evidence, and admitted that he could not swear that an instrument had been used noon Miss Cochram at all. Dr. T. Zohrab, a bouse surgeon at the Wellington Public Hospital, said that he had examined Miss Cockram upon her admission to the Hospital. Her condition was consistent with an abortion produced either bv an instrument or by natural causes. Ella Sylvia Rush related how the accused had performed a number of operations upon her, some at the accused’s house and some at the house of Mrs. Wilson in Owen Street. , Allan Mangu-on stated that he had visited Mrs. Nevill’s house, where he made arrangements for an operation to be performed by the accused on Miss Rush. The fee for this was to be £35. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevenson, witness stated that he knew he was the “miserable old curmudgeon’’ referred to by His Honour Mr. Justice Alpers during his summing up in the previous trial of the accused. The next witness, Claire Carolan, gave evidence of having accompanied Miss Rush to Lyall Bay, and of handing an envelope to a woman at 150 Queen’s Drive. She thought, though she could not swear, that the envelope contained money. She could not swear that the woman to whom she handed the envelope was the accused. Tho depositions of Rena Brown, who was unable to attend in person, were read. They outlined arrangements which she had made with .the accused in reference to an operation. The operation, however, did not take place. Frank Alfred Maher, who was the next witness, related how he had taken Miss Brown to a house at Lyall Bay, although he stated, when cross-examined by Mr. Stevenson, that he did not know the number of the house or I lie street in which it was situated. '['he last witness lor the Cro’-in was Detective Sinclair, who ielated how lie. -with Detective Murray, had arrested tho accused at her house at hvall Mr. Wilford stated that, ho did not intend to call evidence. “Tainted Evidence.” Mr Maeassey delivered a short address to the jury, dealing with the etuestion of the evidence of accomplices, ami ui oing that none of the accomplices I au nail any reason to give untruthful evidence. Iu addressing the jury ou behalf of tlie accused, Mr. Wilford spoke strongly ot .1 he termed the “tainted evidence of accomplices. This evidence, he pointed out, had always to be suimorted by corroborative evidence given oy other witnesses. If there was no such corroborative evidence, it was unsafe for any jury to convict an accused person on tlie. testimony of accomplices. “I am going to suggest to you,” said Mr. Unord, "that this woman has never touched any one of those women who have come into the witness-box.” In each individual case, lie said, there was an absolute lack of that corroborative evidence which was necessary for a conviction. His Honour summed up, and the jury retired at 4.39 p.m., returning at 8.55 pm, with a verdict of guilty on .lie Jharge of using an instrument on Norah Cochram. and not guilty on the other two charges. The jur.v very strongly recommended the accused to mercy, and suggested that a lenient penalty would '"nis Honour stated that he would follow his usual custom, and give every consideration to the jury s recommenda- * "Sen tence will ho passed to-morrow morning. ...