The Syms Case.

Manawatu Herald, 17 December 1892, Page 2

The Syms Case.

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday before the Chief Justice, William Syms, chemist, of Woodville, and also a Justice of the Peace, suirended to his bail, and was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with having on the 25th February last feloniously and unlawfully used certain instruments upon Elizabeth Hall, with intent to procure a miscarriage. Mr Gully (Urown Prosecutor) appeared to prosecute, and Mr Edwards appeared for the defence. Mr Poynton was present to watch the proceedings on behalf of Mrs Hall. Cn the application of Mr Edwards all witnesses except .those belonging to the medical profession were ordered to leave the Court. Elizabeth Hall was then called, and accommodated with a seat beside the Judge, who came down i to the Sheriff's desk for the purpose.

She said she ftas a iiiarried woman, I and prior to December, 1801, lived at Napier. On the 19th December she went to Woodville. Prior to that she had been treated by several medical men for a complaint called endocervicitis. At Napier she was treated by Dr Mac Allan with an instrument. On arriving at. Woodpile she went to stay ai the Star Hotel, and on the 21st or 22nd December she saw prisoner at the door of his shop, and spoke to him about her complaint, telling him she Was gcJing to, see a doctor. He said he could treat her quite as well as a doctor. At prisoner's invitation she then entered his shop, when he examined her and treated her in the same way as the other doctors had treated her, so far as she knew. He continued to treat her for nine weeks after that, three times a week at first and always at his shop. After about six weeks the frequency of the treatment • was reduced to once a week. She remained in the township about six weeks, and then went to live with Mrs Walsh (her brothet's wife), about four miles out. Jmproper relations with the prisoner began from the occassion of her second visit to his shop, about the 24th of December. The witness was then, examined very closely as to her state of health and as to the various symptoms that presented themselves from Wednesday, 24th February, when she last- visited the prisoner, up till .-nnday, the 28th of February, when she was in such pain that she had to keep to her bed. . The witness answered very vaguely the questions put to her, and His Honor therefore tried to elicit an exact statement. She said at last that she had been subject to pain connected with her complaint, and that at times it was worse than usual. It was so on this particular Sunday, the 28th of February, when, at her request, Dr Davenport was called in. He visited her twice during that clay. She understood Dr Davenport to say that sha was not suffering from any disease, but that the instruments must have been used for some other purpose. Constable Treanor accompanied the doctor on his second visit that Sunday, and they remained some little time Witness stayed three or four days longer at her brother's home, during which time Dr Davenport continued treating her, and after this she went to live with a neighbour named Mrs Holloway, who was also a relative. Before going to Woodville she had been treated by Dr King, of Wellington, and Drs Menzies and De Lisle, of Napier. After February last she was treated by Dr Reid, of Waipawa. She knew prisoner before December, 1891, and had procured medicines from him. From December, 1891, up till the time she left his treatment she was taking medicine prescribed by him. Under cross-examination by Mr Edwards, the witness said she had had no reason to believe that prisoner's treatment was different from that of the doctors who had treated her. On the last occasion that prisoner treated her she had to walk four miles home afterwards, and therefore, did not feel surprised when the next day she felt ill. Dr Davenport came several times to see her about signing the statement, and asked her to go and see Mrs Davenport, who also sent for her. At times her mind had been affected, she believed, At one time she thought three of her father's friends were conspiring to' murder him and to lay the blame upon her. That was after coming from the Waipukurau Hospital in June last, and acting upon the delusion she went and complained to a justice of the peace. She was also under a delusion respecting her Uncle Heady, believing him to be one of the conspirators. Mr Gully wished to question the witness about Dr Davenport's statement to her on Sunday, 28th February, as to the condition in which he found her. His Honor explained to the witness that by an Act of Parliament she was allowed the option of decid ing whether or not the doctor should be allowed to state in evidence what her condition was when he visited her and what she said to him. Would she consent tp this ? The witness, after some hesitation, said ' I don't see any necessity for giving my consent.' His Honor having again explained the position to make it quite clear. The witness (smiling) said : * Perhaps its juat as well not to consent.' Then, again smiling, she said she would not consent. The question was repeated, and the witness again said she refused her consent. His Honor : Does this refusal apply also to the other doctors who have treated you ? — ' Yes, I suppose 80.' His Honor : Then you practica'ly wish to stop the prosecution ? — ' Oh, no. 1 His Honor : If this law requires your consent to these medical gentlemen telling the jury anything they know about the matter, and if you do not give your consent, then all their mouths are stopped. You understand the position, don't you ? The witness, still smiling, aigni-

fied assent, and intimated that gild was indisposed to give her coti* sent His Honor thought if the circumstances warranted it, he had power to adiiiit the medical evidence despite Mrs Hairs refusal of hei 4 consent. Mrs Norah" Walshj wife of Patrick Walsli atld sister-in-law of last witness, deposed that she lived four miles out of Woodville. She recollected her sister-in-law going to Woodville, on "Wednesday, the 24th February, she thought it was,: and returning rather tired. On the following day Mrs Hall complained of not being well, and on Friday she said she felt very bad; and wag vomiting. Next day (Saturday) she seemed somewhat better and got up in the morning, but went to bed again in the afternoon. ' After 12 on Saturday night Mrs Hall complained of being in pain, and witness gave her a drink. On Sunday morning she was worse, and witness thought her symptoms unusual. [Here the witness went into particulars, which we do not feel called upon to publish.] She saw Dr Davenport passing by, and called him in on his return. About the Friday following Mrs Hall went to stay at Mrs Holloway's another of her relatives. Cross-examined by Mr Edwards : If Dr Milne stated that she had told him she did not know what Mrs Hall was making such a fuss over, as she had been as bad herself, he was telling a falsehood. Questioned about some other points, the witness began to cry, saying that Mr Edwards wanted to l catch ' her. This he denied, and the cross-exami-nation closed. Dr Harold W. W. Davenport, practising at Woodville, . deposed that he was called in to attend Mrs Hal on Sunday, December 28th. He examined her and remained about an hour. Mr Gully intimated that he purposed asking the witness to state what he saw. His Honor, after consulting several American authorities, said that to whatever extent this was asked he would admit it. Without such evidence, of course", the learned * gentleman would have to stop his case. Mr Edwards asked that the point might be reserved. His Honor said it would, be.-re-served in any case. - Dr Davenport then proceeded to describe how he found Mrs , Sail, mentioning as he did so that she was in great pain. He examined her internally. Some of the circumstances of her case that day and for days afterwards were incidental only to birth or miscarriage. There was no other cause with which " the symptoms taken together would be consistent. The woman was very seriously ill ; in fact, he thought her life in danger. On Sunday night he interviewed Constable Treanor. The witness was then examined as to the nature of the complaint for the treatment of which Mrs Hall first visited the prisoner, the proper method of treatment of it, and the probable effect of the use of such instruments as prisoner was said to have used. Mr Edwards cross-examined, ,the wirness at considerable length upon his diagnosis of Mrs Hall's case* . The Crown Prosecutor rerexamined Dr Davenport, and, occupied 55 minutes before he had finished. The examination was of a technical character relating to the medical aspect of Mrs Ha-U's oasej. Dr Thos. Mac Allan was then called. He deposed' that^ he 'was practising at Napier in December, 1891, and from the 4fch to-fche 18th of that month he treated Mr|/Hall for endo«*cervicitis. . It , : diet; f not appear to be a, severe case „ Cross-examined by Mr Edwards: Do you think it possible', on the evidence of what Dr Daveijpbrt days he saw, to come to: an' absolute conclusion that therVhad 'beett abortion ?-N0 " , i'^^r;;'? Assuming you put yourself in ' the position of Dr Davenport, and , having heard what Mrs Walsh says she saw. do you thin Vany medical man could say with certainty thewf^had been abortion ? — No. The witness further said Dr Davenport told him dbctors should combine to put down chemists who did what doctors ought to do. . > Dr Edward Menzies, medical superintendent in charge of Napier Hospital, deposed that Mrs, Hall was a patient in the hospital in October, 1891 . She remained in the hospital from the 17th to the 81st October and left apparently . well. Tp use the instruments in the way' tnese instruments were said to have Been used would be highly improper, and the medicine given to Mrs Hall would 'assist the alleged, object. The trial was continues , at^he Supreme Court on Thujcaiaj,, '..}]- Dr .Menzies, of the Napier Hospital, under cross-examination, stated that hysteria (to which Mrs Hall was said to be subject) note uncommonly gave rise to delusions, and in most cases these delusion* related to the opposite box. The witriesstetated that, after hearing the evidence) of Mrs Halli MrlWalsli? B|r Davenport and Dr Mac Allan, hie was of opinion ' that abortion had token place in Mrs flail's case. . .?; Jn reply to His Honor the witnw

said the Symptoms described by Dr DtttetirJdrt \¥era consistent with ti ■ legal practice. Wiilian Skey, Colonial Analysis*, stated that he had been unable to find any traces of ergot in the medicine furnished by the prisoner to Mrs Hall. Edward Alex. Haggen, editor of the Woodville JbtMniiner, swore that he had seeii a writteil prescription given to Mrs Hall, which contained four ingredients, of which ergot and cinnamon formed two. It was in the prisoner's handwriting, and was intended for her on the 28rd Felruary. Dr James Reid was also examined. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Edwards, in opening the case for the defence, urged that the only circumstance yet brought out against the accused was the intimacy with Mrs Hall which she had alleged. This, however, would be denied by the accused. The. woman was subject to allusions. DrF. J. De Lisle, of Napier, de« posed that Mrs Hall had been under his treatment for endo eervictis in November, 1.891. From what Dr Davenport had stated he certainly could not conclude that there had been abortion. Cross-examined by Mr Gully : The circumstances were not inconsistent, however, with such an occurrence. Dr Eudolph Von Mirbach said such a complaint as Mr Hall suffrom often produced an effect on the mind. Dr Alex. C Milne said Mrs Walsh had told him while he Was attending her child that as far as she could see there wa* nothing in Mrs Hall's case to make a fuss about ; that she had been as ill herself without requiring to call in a doctor. By His Honor: She told him, however, that she thought her sis-ter-in-law had had an abortion. — Condensed from N.Z. limes. The remainder of the evidence will appear in our next issue.