Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

APPEAL COURT.

AN ABORTION CASE. (Per Press Association.! Wellington, August 3. In the Appeal Court to-day the case the Crown y. Reynolds and Peterson is being heard. This is a case reserved by Sir Robert Stout from the Supreme Court in Wellington. Prisoners are charged with procuring abortion, and application was made to have them tried separately upon the ground that they will bo prejudiced in their defences. This was refused by Sir Robert Stout, who subsequently directed for an acquittal on the ground that the girl’s evidence, uncorroborated, was insufficient. The questions for the Appeal Court wore: Was His Honour right in refusing an application for the severance of the charges and in holding there was not sufficient corroboration of the girl’s story, and in directing the jury to acquit ?

Mr. Noavo appeared for the Crown, Mr. Gray for Reynolds, and Mr. Herdman for Peterson.

Mr. Neavo contended that tlio jury were entitled to convict if they thought tho girl’s story true, after having been warned by tho Judge as to the unreliability of an accomplice’s evidence. He further contended there was corroborative evidence of independent witnesses. Mr. Gray, for Reynolds, submitted that it was the duty of the presiding Judge to advise the jury to acquit the prisoner in tho absence of corroborative evidence. This was substantially what was done. Even if tho Judge actually did direct tho acquittal then, looking at tho evidence, there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice, and a new trial should not bo ordered. Ho also submitted that tho prisoners should bo tried separately, as their joint trial might be prejudicial to them.

Mr. Herdman accepted Mr. Gray’s argument, and did not address the Court. Mr. N oavo briefly replied. ’The Court reserved its decision.

For influenza take Woods’ Great Peppermint Cure; never falls. Is (id and 2s Ol *

Just give a Worthoim machine good oil and it will livo longer than you will.—E. Dixon and Co., Stratford.*

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19110804.2.25

Bibliographic details

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 139, 4 August 1911, Page 5

Word Count
326

APPEAL COURT. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 139, 4 August 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 139, 4 August 1911, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert