QUESTION OF INTENTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1921, Page 6

QUESTION OF INTENTION.

THE USE OF A DRUG. CASE IN SUPREME COURT. At the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday Archie Cecil Hooker was charged with supplying a noxious thing with intent to procure a miscarriage. He was also alternatively charged with unlawfully supplying a noxious thing knowing that it wa-s intended to be used for the purpose of procuring miscarriage; and also that he did unlawfully attempt to supply a noxious thing knowing that it was intended to be used to procure miscarriage. Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Crown, ana Mr. R. H. Quilliam defended accused.

The jury comprised: Messrs. F. A. Coleman (foreman), N. L. Hanwright, R. C. Rickard, F. C. Harrison, H. D. Curline. J. Cook, F. Baker, W. Mitchinson, J. T. Locke, W. 0. Ford, A. B. Edgecombe, A. Cowling. The brother of the girl concerned stated that Hooker had openly courted his

sister, and when, after the alleged offence, he was asked to marry the girl he said he could not, as he was a married man. Later, at the police station, witness took from his pocket the drug alleged to have been given by Hooker with the intention of procuring a miscarriage. Witness stated to the detective that the packet of drugs had been sent to his sister through the, pqst, and he had found them under the rrtattress of his sister’s bed. Accused then admitted that the drugs were intended to procure a miscarriage. He had gone to the police because he was not sure of accused’s address, and sought their assistance in the event of his being unable to find accused. Dr. H. A. McCleland gave evidence as to the contents of the capsules in the package sent by accused to the girl. He said, that in the doses prescribed he was of opinion that the drug would not produce the desired effect.

In 'answer to Mr. Quilliam, witness said that if the whole box of twenty capsules were taken at the rate, of six a day it should not, under ordinary circumstances. produce any injurious effects or procure a mi-carriage. Mr. Quilliam said the defence wa-s a , denial of any intention to procure & miscarriage. The accused, a plasterer, residing at 3X'ew Plymouth, said he was responsible for the trouble into which the girl had fallen. He had laid her that he could not marry her because he suffered from consumption. To Mr. Quilliam, he said the real reason why he would not marry the girl was because he had already been married while on leave at the front. The girl was quite willing to take something to procure a miscarriage. He had bought the capsules in question to satisfy her, knowing all the time that they were harmless. The girl’s brother had threatened to show the capsules to the police, and he (Hooker) told her that the police could do nothing, as the capsules were harmless. In his address to the jury, Mr. Quilliam emphasised that 'he basis of the defence was the question of intention—the question of the guilty mind. Mr. Quilliam pointed out that the medical evidence had established that the capsules, which had been procured quite openly from a chemist, would not do what was desired. The accused knew that these capsules were not capable of this, and that, counsel contended, deposed of the question of the guilty mind and established that the intention to do wrong was absent. Mr. Quilliam submitted that the actions of accused were those of a man who was prepared to shoulder his responsibilities in the trouble. The Crown Prosecutor did not address tiie jury. In summing up, His Honor put four issues to the jury. They retired at 2.55 p.m., and when the Court resumed at 7 p.m. returned answers as follows: (1) Did the accused, in supplying the capsules, intend to procure a miscarriage? —Answer: No agreement. (2) Did he supply them believing that the girl intended to use them for that purpose ?—Answer: Yes. (3) Did he supply them believing that they contained ergot?—Answer: Yes. (4) Is ergot a noxious substance—that is to say a substance capable of procuring miscarriage ?—Answer: Yes.

Addressing the jury, His Honor said that he regretted they were’ unable to agree on the first question. He said it was a question of whether the girl or accused used the capsules for the purpose of procuring miscarriage. On the first question His Honor said he would take the responsibility of directing the jury that it did not matter if the quantity of the drug administered was sufficient to procure miscarriage. The mere act of supplying a drug of a character calculated to be capable of causing miscarriage should be sufficient to be an offence. In view of the answers returned to the other questions the only consistent one that could be returned was in the affirmative. The jury again retired and returned shortly afterwards, reporting that they were unable to agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Commenting on this, His Honor said it meant that one or more of the jury, having answered certain questions, were not prepared to abide by the legal result of their answers. A new trial was ordered for next sessions, bail being allowed accused on the same terms as before—namely, his own recognisance of £2OO and two sureties of £lOO each, which were forthcoming.