HAYNE CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 18 February 1922, Page 3

HAYNE CASE

-MANSLAUGHTER AND ABORTION CHARGES.

[BY TELEGIIAI’U —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION]

CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 17

Charges of manslaughter and of attempting to procure a miscarriage were preferred against James Reynolds Hayne, of Dunedin, chemist, at the Supreme Court to-day. In opening the case, the Crown Prosecutor said that a Mrs Atkins was admitted to tlie Tiinarn Hospital, suffering from a miscarriage, and she died on November sth. Her evidence had been taken in the hospital by a Magistrate, and it formed the basis of the case against the accused.

Counsel then outlined Mrs Atkins’ evidence, and said that the jury would he entitled to convict Haynes on Mrs Atkin’s evidence alone, hut it would be unsafe to do so without corroborative evidence. The ground for corroboration was the exact description of Ilayne’s premises given by Mrs Atkins, and also a conversation between Ililtcn and Haynes. There were only three posible explanations of Mrs Atkins’ death. One was she died from septic abortion, caused by natural abortion. The second wa.s that she died from septic abortion, caused by by an operation other than by the accused. The third was that' she died from septic abortion, caused by an operation performed hy the accused.

The evidence, said Counsel, seemed to point to the third being correct. Louis Bruce Stringer, Medical Officer at Timani Hospital, gave evidence that Mrs Atkins, when admitted, was suffering from the effects of a miscarriage.

Cross-examined, witness said the case was one of septic abortion, and might lie- either from manipulation or from .natural causes. There was untiling to show from which the deceased had suffered.

Mrs Atkins’ dispositions were tendered by the Crown.

Frederick Alfred Hilton, brother of ■Mrs Atkins, stated that he went to Ha.vne’s shop, and in the course of a a conversation with Haynes, said that his sister was there, and lie had come for her. Mrs Atkins was brought in and they left. Witness was not questioned hy the defence.

Detective Reid gave evidence respecting the arrest of Ha.vne, and the appointments of his premises.

This closed the Crown’s case. For the defence, .Mr Hilton said that lie would not call evidence. Tt was decided to take the addresses to the jury this afternoon. ADDRESS OF COUNSEL.

Addressing the jury, .Mr Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor) said tlie suggestion that the miscarriage was brought about by natural causes should he dismissed immediately, in view of the nature of the evidence. The question for the jury was whether the prisoner was the man who had brought about the miscarriage. Tlie woman’s own story was perfectly dear, and consistent, and it was amply corroborated. •

Mr Hanlon, for the accused, said that in law, Mrs Atkins was an accomplice of Hnyne, because she was alleged to have gone to him. and to have asked lor an operation. Had they, lie asked, been presented with her evidence iu a satisfactory way? They had been unable to witness her demeanour in giving evidence, and, under cross examination. All they had was a typewritten document, containing her evidence, being statements made before someone else. Would they he prepared to convict tho prisoner upon that without corroboration ? Surely not. The evidence in corroboration must tend to show that the prisoner was the man who procured the miscarriage of the woman. Had such corroboration been presented? Was there corroboration ol an illegal opcialion having been performed upon the woman? He contended there was not. After commenting further fin the evidence brought forward by the Crown, Mr Hanlon said it was not sufficient for the Crown to conic along with a statement by the deceased woman, if there wore any flaws in it at all. He submitted that serious flaws had been exposed. The Crown harped upon her description of the place, hut it piovod nothing. The corroboration was the weakest possible. It. had gone to show that Atkins had not told the whole truth about the matter. The jury retired at 8.-I5 p.m., and returned at ?.6 p.m.

The foreman announced there was no hope of coming to an agreement. NEW TRIAL. The Crown Prosecutor then moved for a new trial on the 27th inst., which was granted. Accused was liberated on bail of £IOOO.