Widow is Acquitted on Serious Charge

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 812, 5 November 1929, Page 11

Widow is Acquitted on Serious Charge

YOUNG WOMAN’S DEATH ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION The events leading up to the death of a young Waihi woman, Amelia Mary Pipe, from septicaemia, following an illegal operation, were recalled before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court today, when Adeline Pyle, a middle-aged widow, was acquitted on a charge of unlawfully using an instrument, causing death, thereby committing murder. Mr. Singer appeared for accused. Mr. Hubble, who conducted the prosecution, explained that the murder charge was brought under a special provision of the Crimes Act, which stated that where a person committed an act, knowing it would cause death, and the patient died, the offence was murder. The Jury could, if It thought fit, bring in a verdict of manslaughter. The medical superintendent of the Waihi Hospital, Dr. J. M. Cole, said that Miss Pipe was admitted as a patient on July 18, and she was later discovered to be suffering from septicaemia. Her death occurred on July 26. A post-mortem examination disclosed that the poisoning was the result of septic miscarriage, which was not natural. Dr. T. G. Short, who attended the young woman, said that when he first examined her he considered she was suffering from gastritis. A week later he again attended her and following admission to the hospital it was established she was suffering from septicaemia. On June IV. Herbert Alfred Pipe, the father, stated that his daughter came to Auckland to see her sister. Returning on June 29 the young woman went to bed. While his daughter was ill he received a letter addressed to her, signed by Mrs. Pyle, and bearing the address 274 Ponsonby Road. His daughter had always been strong and healthy, and he did not know she was in trouble. ACCOMPANIED TO HOUSE

Mrs. Doris Jarvis, of Otahuhu, said that she had known Miss Pipe when she lived at Waihi. As a result of a letter from Miss Pipe in June witness telephoned Mrs. Pyle and a week later she accompanied Miss Pipe to Mr s. Pple’s house, 274 Ponsonby Road, one morning. Witness identified accused as the woman who answered the door and who announced she was Mrs. Pyle’s house, 274 Ponsonby Road, Miss Pipe was the “girl I rang you about. »he will tell you all about it.” Witness then left the premises. Kathleen Isabel Pipe, a sister of deceased, living in Auckland, said that on Wednesday of her sister’s last week in the City she accompanied her to 274 Ponsonby Road. Her sister was admitted by Mrs. Pyle and witness left. Two days later witness saw Mrs. Pyle, who told her her sister would be all right so long as she looked after herself. Sergeant Calwell read the depositions made by the dying woman. In this document Miss Pipe said that Mrs. Pyle had examined her and informed her she was not in trouble. It was two weeks after she- saw Mrs. Pyle that she was admitted to the hospital. She saw because Mrs. Jarvis had told her Mrs. Pyle was a maternity nurse. Detective-Sergeant Doyle said that when he and Detective O’Sullivan interviewed Mrs. Pyle on July 26, accused denied knowledge of the young woman. Further questioned, she admitted that she knew Mrs. Jarvis and that a girl named Pipe might have come to her premises with Mrs. Jarvis. A search of the room revealed a letter from Miss Pipe, stating that the writer was all right, though weak and ill. Miss Pipe further stated she had burned an instrument. In a statement Mrs. Pyle admitted receiving the letter and that she had written to the young woman. In a statement Mrs. Pyle said that when Miss. Pipe saw her she said that an illegal operation had already been performed on her. Mrs. Pyle said that she prescribed for the young woman out of generosity and also provided her with a hot-water bottle. For the defence Mr. Singer referred to the heavy obligation on the part of the Crown to prove its case to the utmost. It was clear that Mrs. Pyle had not performed any operation, the young woman herself having sworn to that effect. In his summing-up, his Honour stated that there was a fundamental weakness in the Crown case in that the young woman herself had sworn accused had not performed the operation, and it was clear that the act had been performed either by the girl or someone else. Under the circumstances his Honour advrsed tlie jury to acquit the accused. After ten minutes’ retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.