PRISONER FREED

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 362, 17 February 1937, Page 6

PRISONER FREED

JURY DISAGREES. FOURTH TRIAL ENDS. Hastings Woman Discharged By Jury. Press Association —Copyright. Wellington, Last Night. For the fourth time a jury failed to reach an agreement" in the case of Isabel Annie Aves, also known as Cralke, 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 in the Supreme Court at Wellington to-day, 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 hour.? and the jury retired at 12.50 p.m. and returned at 4.55 p.m- with the announcement it could net agree. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), addressing the accused wtopian, said: “Not only was there in this 1 case evidence given by five different women alleging that you procured their miscarriages by the use <~f instruments, two women alleging that they were twice operated upon, but there was evidence which is undisputed and indisputable that during a period of from 18 to 20 months you purchased no fevJer than 20 dozen —tha-. is 24 7 —of these instruments, wh’ch the medical evidence says cannot be imagined for use in the hands of a pr>person for other than an illegal purpose.

“There was also evidence that during that same period of 18 months you received from no fewer than 183 persons in varying sums an : ggregate of £2232 10s, that proof coming from your own books. Not only that., but there was' evidence that the ground at the back part of jour section was impregnated with ) uman foetal remains, the evidence beuiv 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 some difficulty and has not been able to agrbe upon the question presumably whether you were the person who epmmitted these offences. I don’t know whether that is the 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 in such a way by anyone so that you may be brought before the court again on a charge of this kind, because if you are you may not be so fortunate as you are on this occasion.”