Mrs Aves Discharged

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 40, 17 February 1937, Page 5

Mrs Aves Discharged

Fourth Jury Fails to Agree CHIEF JUSTICE ISSUES WARNING TO ACCUSED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. For the fourth time, a jury failed to reach an agreement in the case of Isabel Annie Aves, also known as Craikc, a married woman of Hastings, who has stood trial at Napier and three times at Wellington, on seven charges of using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. The fourth trial was concluded to-day in the Supreme Court, Wellington, when it was announced that the Crown did not intend to proceed further and the prisoner was discharged. No evidence was called for the defence. The final addresses to the jury occupied more than two hours. The jury retired at 12.50 p.m. and returned at 4.55 p.m. with the announcement that it could not agree. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, addressing accused said: “Not only was there in this case evidence given by five different women alleging that you procured their miscarriages by use of instruments—two women alleging that they were twice operated upon—but there was also evidence which is undisputed and indisputable that during a jieriod of from 18 to 20 months, you purchased no fewer than 20 dozen—that is, 240—0 f these instruments which medical evidence says' cannot be imagined for use in the hands of a private person for other than an illegal purpose. There was also evidence that during that period of 18 months, you received from no fewer than 183 persons in varying sums an aggregate of £2232 10a, that proof coming from your own books. Not only that, but there was evidence that the ground at tho back part of your section was impregnated with human foetal remains, the evidence being that no fewer than 22 foetuses were found.

“Well, upon that evidence the Crown submitted that a nefarious and criminal business must have been going on in your house for a period of 18 months or more. The jury apparently found borne difficulty and has not bee*. ablu to agree upon the question presumably as to whether you were the actual person who committed these offences. I don’t know whether or not that is a precise question on which the jury differed, but all I can say is that I should recommend you to see that your household in future is not carried on xn such, a way by anyone as that you may be brought before the court again ou a charge of this kind because, if you are, you may not bo so fortunate as you are on this occasion.” After the prisoner left the dock his Honour said: “I venture to make those observations because there are various aspects of this case which, in my view, are worthy of the serious attention of those who guide the destiny of this young country.”