ILLEGAL OPERATION

Hokitika Guardian, 1 November 1932, Page 6

ILLEGAL OPERATION

. HEWER ON TRIAL. SORDID EVIDENCE. , Per Press Association— Copyright .) Auckland, Nov. i. George Frederick |Hewer, 39, a medical man, is on trial in th© Supreme Court, charged on three counts with performing illegal operations on a youiig woman. T‘ie womans infant which was- borii alive, died, and Hewer was charged with murder, but on that charge he was acquitted. In opening the case to-day, the Crown Prosecutor said it apparently was a fact that an • illegal operation i ] ia d been previously, performed on the woman in Palmerston North, '" at that did’ not come into the present proceedings, except insofar as it affected the Woman’s condition. The evidence of the woman’s mother Avns that Hewer was reluctant to perform the operation, but she begged him to help her, saying her daughter had been ruined, and deserted. •Cross-examined, the mother admitted that her daughter had tried other means before coming to Auckland, Besides the previous operation, her daughter and the young man fe,?ponsib'© for her condition had made attempts to secure certain results. When th© youiig woman entered the witness box and was asked to say what happened to her ..in Hover’s rooms, she said thill did: not see anything, arid cotild not describe the examinations that were made. - ' . . The Crown Prosecutor tried in vain to induce her to give further and more precise evidence. Slie said that when she made her statement to th e prince, she was not in a' fit state. Justice Herdman; “You realise that you are on your oath ?” Witness “Yes. 1 understand that. The Judge pointed out that the evidence of the girl was given only a. short time ago, and said that it seemed a traversty if any girl could go into the witness box and say that she could not remember. After legal argument if, was decided' that; witness could be asked if she had made a 'statement previously. She replied that she made a statement iff trie lower court, and signed it, but did not read it over. After further argument, the judge said that evidence of the use of an instrument was essential evidence of mere examination, but not sufficient. As the case stood ther© was no proof whatever. Ilf would he ' aly wasting time to go further, and ne instructed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. ; Accused Wris .discharged. 1 I 4—’.ri -■ to.-.--•' »•■-