MURDER CHARGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3032, 6 May 1926, Page 3

MURDER CHARGE.

YOUNG WOMAN ACQUITTED. Palmerston North, May'4. An unmarried woman of 22 years, named Hazel McNamara, described as a domestic, appeared in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North on Tuesday to answer a charge of murdering on or about January 19 at Palmerston North her newly-born child. Accused entered a plea of not guilty. Miriam Mudgway, of Cuba Street, Palmerston North, gave evidence to the effect that in November last accused was boarding with her. On January 21 witness saw bloodstains in the bathroom. Witness went to the window, through which she saw accused in bed looking dreadfully ill. Witness returned in a few minutes, and accused had left the room, and was walking across the road. She carried a. suitcase. Bloodstains were found on the bedclothes and (loor of the bedroom.

Constable Thom deposed to having visited the house. He went to the railway station, where he found accused. At the police station she confessed that she had given birth to a seven-months old child. It had been born alive. The suitease she had been carrying was opened, and in it was the dead body of a female child. Medical evidence was given that the body was that- of'a mature child, bearing no marks of external violence, while there was no obstruction in mouth or throat. There was no doubt the child was born alive, and that haemorrhage had contributed to its death.

For the defence, Mr. Ongley said that the hydrostatic test, which had been used in this ease, had been before the Court on a number of occasions and had been insufficient. It, had to be proved that the child was born wholly alive. There was no act that the Crown could point out to show that accused was guilty of murder. Accused was ignorant of what to do at the birth of her child, being barred by shame from inquiring. In summing up, His Honour said it was possible- that in regard to accused’s statement to the police that the child was born alive, she may not have been fully conscious of what she was saying owing to her condition. Accused certainly was guilty of what the law knew as concealment of birth, but with that she was not charged. The negligence which would reduce the charge to one of manslaughter must be negligence after the birth of the child.

After a short retirement the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was accordingly discharged.