COURT NEWS.

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1926, Page 2

COURT NEWS.

BY TELEGRAM! —PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT. ACCUSED COMMITTED. WELLINGTON, September 3. Afr Page, S.AL, after considering the objection of Air Stevenson, counsel for the defence, to the suppression of names of the girl witnesses in the \ murder charge against Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Neville, agreed to allow the names to be published, on the ground that the feelings of the witnesses must not ho allowed to outwejgh consideration for the accused. On the conclusion of the evidence Mr Stevenson said the only submission which, the defence would make was that there was no legal evidence t> send the accused forward on a murder charge. ■ i Air Page: “ Counsel for the del once J, has pressed me to give a ruling as to . whether depositions taken on an ahor-, lion charge. If it were necessary for me to express my opinion on this important and difficult question. 1 should do so. but 1 do not consider it necessary. This is not a trial, but an inquiry. T have merely to ascertain, in the terms of the Statute, as to whether there is sufficient evidence t > put the accused on her trial for an indictable offence. It is clear that the depositions are admissnblc on the abortion charge, hut wehtlier they are admissable on the charge of murder must . be decided by another tribunal.” Mr Stevenson: “ Is there are particular offence you are sending her forward on?” Air Page: “1 find there is evidence to justify me sending her forward on a charge of abortion.” Air Stevenson: “Is she committed on a charge of abortion only? ” Mi- Page: “1 send liter forward on an indictable offence. She could bo charged with abortion, and possibly with two other charges, murder or manslaughter.” Bail in the sum of £3OO, with two sureties of £l5O each, was renewed. OTIIr.R CHARGES ADJOURNED. / WELLINGTON. September 3. Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Neville, aged -19, was committed for trial at ti’ie Supreme Court on the indictable charge of abortion. 1 His Worship said the evidence justified him in committing the accused for trial on an indictable offence. He said there were possible grounds tor another charge of murder or manslaughter. Three further charges against the accused, after the hearing of evidence, were adjourned. The ease presented sensational features. The Court was again cleared. t The general trend of evidence was that accused had performed an illegal operation on several women,- single and married, in each case charging a fee of £2O. The charges again Dr Jacobsen an l others were adjourned till next week. Bail was allowed. A LEGAL FARCE. AUCKLAND, September 3. Described by the police as a member of the Williamson Comic Opera at present appearing in Auckland, James W. Milford, was before the Po- , lice Court this morning on two charges under the Arms Act. He was charged with bringing two shotguns into New Zealand without having first obtained permits, and he pleaded “not guilty.”

Constable Doel, of the Arms Office at the Police Station, Auckland, said that defendant arrived from Sydney bv the Uiimuroa at Wellington. Immediately on arrival there, he declared two shotguns to the Customs officers. He then came to Auckland, and, on opening up his luggage, hook both guns down and deposited them with the Customs here.

Mr Hunt: “Well, what’s wrong with that?' What has this man done? Ho arrives at Wellington and declares two - guns, which he places with the Customs here. The dinrges should never have been brought. Why were t !- ey brought? ” Constable Duel: “ That has nothing to do wi,th me, sir,” Senior-Sergeant Edwards: “The defendant is charged on instructions from our superior officers.” Mr Hunt: “It’s a big farce.” Without hearing anything further, the Magistrate turned to the defendant and said: “You can go away now. The charges are dismissed.” DOCTOR CHARGED. WELLINGTON. September 3. Oscar Jacobsen, a medical practitioner. who is charged with inciting Rena Brown to have an unlawful instrument used upon her. was remanded at the Court to-day till Wednesday next, hail in the sum of £250, with a similar surety was renewed. A PATHETIC CASE. AUCKLAND, September 3. A pathetic divorce action, based on habitual drunkenness on the part of the wife, came before Mr Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court to-day, when Joseph Buckley, an elderly man, afflicted with deafness, asked for the dissolution of his marriage that was contracted nearly 40 years ago. The respondent, Catherine Buckley, although she was in another room, did not appear in the court. Her counsel. Mr Sullivan, obtained leave to withdraw the answers to the petition, making it an undefended action. The petitioner was a sorrowful figure in the witness box. and his story was drawn out more by the questions of his counsel. Mr Singer, than by his monosyllabic answers. The petitioner said that, almost from the time the marriage was contracted on November 7. 1888, drink had obsessed his wife. Although there were six children of the marriage, the home was a scene of continuous outbursts of violence. His wife would break furniture and tear blankets and only a few years? ago she smashed a door with an axe. Tlio respondent was arrested for drunkenness on different occasions, and once she disappeared from home, and when traced with great difficulty, was found to lie living under an assumed name. Mr Sullivan said the respondent admitted having taken to drink, following a shock a few years ago. She had not been drinking all through her married life. Mr Singer said Mr Bueklev had brought the petition because he was “ tired of the whole business.’ ’ Mr Sullivan: The petition is not defended, but it is right and proper that 1 should mention that the wife has not been drinking for eight months past, evet since the petition was served. A decree nisi was granted. '