NOT GUILTY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 August 1924, Page 5

NOT GUILTY.

UNLAWFUL OPERATION. QUESTION OF IDENTIFICATION. FAILURE OF WITNESS. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, Aug. 4. Proceedings took an unexpected turn in the Supreme Court this morning, when a witness called by the Crown stated that she could not identify the woman in the dock as the person n 7 ho had performed a certain operation upon her. Mrs. Maude Herbert was charged that, on January 25, 1924, at Auckland, she did unlawfully use an instrument upon a female with intent to procure abortion. A plea of not guilty was entered. The young woman concerned described going to a certain house and what took place there. Witness said she did not know who was in the room, as there were no lights. The Grown Prosecutor (Mr. Meredith): AVho M'as this woman? Witness: I cannot swear to recognising her. Mr. Meredith: Did you recognise her in the lower court?- —I presumed it was Mrs. Herbert. How close Mere you to the woman when you gave her £4 for the operation ? —About a yard. Do you seriously tell us you never saw the woman’s face at any stage of the proceedings?—l didn’t see. In the loiver court weren’t you asked if Mrs. Herbert was the woman who performed the operation on you? —I don’t think so Didn’t you look at her when going through the lighted dining-room —I went first, and she came behind. I thanked her without looking at her; I was crying. ” Mr. Justice Stringer said the jury would have to take into consideration the statements made to the police. AVere they admissions . The issue in doubt ivas as to the identity of the woman M’ho performed the operation. After fifty minutes’ retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.