THE NEVILL TRIAL

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12623, 7 December 1926, Page 4

THE NEVILL TRIAL

DEATH OF MARRIED WOMAN SPECIAL SITTING OF COURT CASE HEARD IN CAMERA \ Attired in a black costume, and wearing a hat to match, pulled well down over her forehead, Elizabeth Ann Wylie, alias Nevill, appeared in the dock of the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice Alpers, and in quiet tones answered “Not Guilty,” when charged that on or about July 11th, 1926, at Wellington, she unlawfully used upon Elsie Davis, a woman then being with child, a certain instrument, or other means, with intent to procure miscarriage. The trial, for which a special sitting of the court has been arranged, was heard in camera throughout the day without finality being reached. The evidence tendered for consideration by the jury, of which R. Pointon is foreman, was lengthy, and along , similar lines to that given in the lower court proceedings. In outlining the facts of tho case, Mr P. S. K. Macassey, for the . Crown, pointed out that Mrs Davis died at the Wellington Public Hospital on July 21st last from peritonitis, following a septic miscarriage, alleged to have been produced by an illegal operation performed by the accused. The deceased was a married woman at Hataitai, and the evidence would go to show that she was taken to the accused’s residence at Lyall Bay for treatment. . Mr T. Wilford, who appeared for the accused, associated with him Mr J. F. B. Stevenson, objected to submissions made by opposing counsel, when the latter proceeded to adduce facts calculated to prove a system on the part of the accused.

Mr Macassey contended that the evidence was admissible as it went to establish that the accused was a. professional abortionist. His Honour considered the evidence was admissible, but Mr Wilford was right in raising the objection. The first witness for the jwosecution, Detective W. R.. Murray, related incidents that had occurred at the proceedings taken against the accused at thd public hospital, when Mrs Davis gave evidence just prior to dying. The latter was obviously ill, he said, hut quite rational. Mr Stevenson, who represented Mrs Wylie at the initial hearing, was given full opportunity to crossexamine 'the deceased. , DYING DEPOSITIONS Mr Wilford objected to the depositions being put in, saying that they were taken an July 20th, and related to incidents on July sth, whereas the present proceedings were confined to about July 11th. Mr Stephenson had no opportunity to cross-examine Mrs Davis relative to the latter date. As oounsel for the accused he knew that cross-ex-amination in respect to the fifth would be idle.

Mr Macassey held that the date was immaterial so long as the offence of abortion was proven. His Honour explained that the deceased did not specifically mention the fifth. If Mr Stephenson had information concerning that date why did he not question the, witness about it. The evidence was allowed to be put in. Mr Wilford to witness: Can you tell me whether during the examination restoratives were administered to the deceased?—-She Was given something to drink. Do von know if any morphia was given her?—Not to my knowledge. Then these depositions were taken in open court and not in fear of death? —That is so. Witness said it was common kn<jwledge that the deceased was dying,_ although he could not say that the patient was aware of her position at the time. No matter how far gone she was the evidence was intelligently given?—l understand that with her complaint a person is quite rational up to the time of death. Mr Wilford (testily): We will leave that to the doctor. His Honour: You put the question and witness answered it to the best of his ability. Mr Wilford: I have known a deteo,tive to give evidence on congenital diseases, but I don’t know if he knew much about them. j Witness was questioned /concerning certain instruments produced and referred to in the dying woman’s depositions, and at the conclusion of his evidence. Detective Sinclair, who had previously left tho court in compliance with a request by Mr WiifoTd, again came on the scene. HUMOURING COUNSEL It was not fair to his client, Mr Wilford said, that Detective Sinclair, who had yet to give evidence, was allowed in to the proceedings. The purpose of his having witnesses ordered out of the court was frustrated if he were allowed to remain. Mr Macassey said that in cases of tho present nature the Crown was allowed to have one responsible officer in the court. “If there is any suggestion that ho will interfere with the accused’s case, I will again ask him to retire,” he added. His Honour said that he had noted Mr Wilford’s objections to each witness categorically. In order to humour Mr Wilford no doubt the detective would retire for a smoke. 1 Arthur Jeffery Davis, husband of the deceased, dealt with conversations that ho had had with his wife over the ’phone from Nelson. She mentioned that she was ill on July 10th, and he suggested that perhaps she had the ’flu. Cross-examined, witness admitted that in the course of his business he oanvassed with some of .the instruments mentioned in the case. He was accustomed to ringing up his , wife when away. She did not convey her intention of procuring abortion to him, but she had procured one previously as the result of an accident. He denied that he was aware that she was going to have the operation performed and had rung up three days running to gain knowledge of her condition. His wife did not mention that she had had a miscarriage when he saw her subsequently at the hospital. She knew that he was aware nf what the position was then. He did not provide the £2O that his wife said she gave to Mrs Nevill, nor did his wife nrcuso the latter at any time to him. He was not even aware that his wife was pregnant. A FRIEND’S ASSISTANCE Kenneth Moßenn Stewart, manager of Mnrrnr, Roberts and Pompanv, Lt'h. of Mnstorton, explninod that bo had been a' friend of the deceased’s

for eight or nine years. On July 10th he took Mrs Davis out for a drive, and he was asked by her to pull up at a place in Lyall Bay, which he now knew as Queen’s Drive. He had come through to Wellington for the races. He drove around the bays for a couple of hours with Mrs Davis, and' left again for Masterton at 10.30 p.m. They had pulled up for brief periods at Island Bay and . outside the deceased’s home. To' Mr Wilford: “It was a nioe night and we stopped to have a smoke by the sea.” Mrs Davis did not confide her troubles to him. nor did' he lend her money as a friend. He had driven with Mrs Davis a month previously. MEDICAL TESTIMONY Medical evidence was tendered by Dr Sydney It. Cattell. He colled at Mrs Davis’s residence on July 14th or 15th, and found the deceased to have a temperature of 102, a pulse of about 120, and about to have a ■miscarriage. Mrs Davis had been -Jtregnant about five or six months. Witness had attended; the accused professionally on five or six occasions early in July. , Cross-examined by Mr Stephenson, witness said be saw no instrument at Mrs Davis’s residence on the occasion of his visits ' , “GASPING FOR BREATH" . Gwendoline Davis, wht> teas employed as companion to Mr’s Davis, ssid she was not aware that the latter was pregnant. On Sunday, July 11th, the deceased went out in the evening, and when she returned a little later she Was gasping for breath, and very agitated. For several days afterwards she was ill, and subsequently said to witness that she thought she was going to have a miscarriage. Up till Sunday, July 11th, Mrs Davis appeared to be in good health. Cross-examined, witness denied that Mrs Davis told her that she ran up the bill to get rid of something. During the three months she was employed by Mrs Davis, she did not: see Mr Mcßean Stewart in ,tho house.! Although he was a friend of the family he never called at the house lo- her knowledge, hut he rang frequently. Mrs Davis did not say' that she had run violently up the hill to get a miscarriage, nor had witness seen her jumping from a chair in the house. Dr Fenwick Forsyth and Dr Bichard B. Martin gave evidence vs to attending to Mrs Davis at the public hospital on July 14th last for n sceptic miscarriage. She appeared to progress satisfactorily up till July liith, when she was transferred to a private hospital. She was readmitted to the public institution the following day suffering from peritonitis and septicaemia. Witness considered her to be critically ill, and after consulting v'ifh the medical superintendent decided to operate. Cross-examined, witness admitted that there were many means of procuring abortion. A well-developed pleurisy at the base of the lung may produce this state. It was established at the post-mortem examination that Mrs Davis was suffering from 1 pleurisy. A septic condition was more likely to cause pleurisy than pleurisy to cause abortion. He could not swear that, an instrument had been used in this case. A BUNGLING AMATEUR 7 Dr F. Patrick Lynch, who conducted . the post-mortem examination on the deceased, said that acute peritonitis was the cause of death. In the oourse of examination Mr Wilford suggested that the operation on Mrs Davis had been performed by a bungling amateur. —No answer. “Well, it did not look as though a skilled medical practitioner had been on the job,” persisted counsel. Witness: A skilled medical practitioner would have had the proper instruments and had the patient properly prepared. Counsel: Yes. It really was the job of a bungling amateur. His Honour: He has not said so. Counsel: I am trying to get him to say so. Detective Sinclair detailed a visit to Mrs Nevill’s residence at Lyall Bay on July 20th, and the happenings at subsequent interviews that he had had with the accused. The accused denied that she knew Mrs Davis or that anyone of that name had been sent to her by a certain doctor. COTTON WOOL AND DISINFECTANT He and Detective Murrny searched the house, and found a quantity or cotton wool in a small room, " to-

gether with a bankbook. The latter showed, that at various times large sums of money had been placed at the accused’s credit. At the j time of Mrs Nevill’s arrest the book showed a credit of £6OO, while Bhe had approximately £142 in her possession. A bottle of disinfectant was also located on the premises. Cross-examined, witness admitted that a certain instrument, thicker than the ones' on exhibition in conrt, was found in Mrs Davis’s house, but it was not taken possession of as a possible instrument used for procuring abortion. The disinfectant (produced) was in common use in houses in the city, hut not in such large quantities. Had the bottle been a small one he may not have taken it. Counsel: How little a bottle would it have to be to keep it from the police? Witness: People can -do lots . of things until they are found out. Corroborative evidence was given by Detective Murray. A DOMESTIC’S STORY Nora Cochrain, a domestic, of Kelhurn, said she was keeping company with a young man named Colvin, and she became pregnant in June of the present year. Witness knew Mrs Nevill, and as the result of a conversation she had with Colvin, she went to 21, Queen’s Drive, Lyall Bay, to see her. Witness asked Mrs Nevill if she could do anything for her? The accused asked her if she wanted to be done then, and whether she wanted to go to. a nursing home. Witness arranged to go back on July Bth, and take with her cotton wool and four yards of butter muslin. Witness did not go in the day specified but went on July 12th, and again saw Mrs Nevill. The latter said she was afraid she could not take witness then as the nursing home was full. The accused then said she would put another little girl off and take witness in her place: The price of £25 qras mentioned as the fee for the operation. Witness went arway and, returning later with Colvin, the latter handed Mrs Nevill £25. Witness remained at the accused’s house, and was introduced to a Mrs Wilson under an assumed name supplied by Mrs Nevill. In the evening, witness alleged, the accused performed an operation on her. , She left the house with Mrs Wilson, of 81, Owen street, between 8 and 9 o’clock the same night. . Witness returned several times later, and ultimately, procured o miscarriage.

Cross-examined, witness said she vfas 26 years of age and had been two years in New Zealand, having come from London. She thought it was a legitimate thing to secure a miscarriage. How were you discovered in this case? —I can’t say 1 I wae in tho Wellington Hospital when the police came to me.

Witness denied that any of her evidence given in the Lower Court had been'read over to her since then. “THE MOUSE AND THE TRAP"

Mr Wilford proceeded to examine witness concerning the time of day she visited Mrs Nevill’s houße. Mr Macassey objected considering that counsel was not being fair to the witness His Honour: He has set a trap for the mouse, and so far the mouse has not walked in to it. Mr Wilford: The persons who decided whether there was a trap and wether the mouse had walked into it, are the jury, not you or I, your Honour. At this stage the case was adjourned until this morning.