SERIOUS CHARGE FAILS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2767, 5 August 1924, Page 2

SERIOUS CHARGE FAILS.

FOR LACK OF IDENTIFICATION

Auckland, Last Night. The 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 who had performed a certain operation upon her. Mrs Maud Herbert was charged that on January 25. 1024, at Auckland, she did unlawfully use an instrument upon a female, with intent to procure abortion and 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. There were m> lights. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Meredith) : Was it this woman? —T cannot swear to recognise her. In the lower court I presumed it was Mrs Herbert. How close were 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 flic proceedings? —I did not see it. In the lower court weren't you asked if Mrs Herbert was the woman who performed the operation up-, on you?—T don’t think so. Didn’t you look at her when going out through the lighter dining-room? - I went first, and she followed behind. I thanked her without looking a' Iter. I was crying.

Mr Justice Stringer said the jury would have, to take into consideration the statements made to-the police. Were they admissions? The issue in doubt was as to the identity of the woman who performed the

operation. After fifty minutes' retirement, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.