ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1922, Page 5

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.

DUNEDIN CHEMIST CHARGED. DEATH OF MARRIED WOMAN. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night. Charges of manslaughter and attempting to procure a miscarriage w’ere preferred against James Reynold Hayne, a Dunedin diemiat, at the Supreme Court to-day. Opening the ease the Crown Prosecutor said Mrs. Atkins was admitted to the Timaru hospital suffering from a miscarriage and died on November 5. Mrs. Atkins’ evidence was taken in hospital by a magistrate and it formed the basis of the caee against accused. Counsel then outlined Mrs. Atkins’ evidence. The jury would be entitled to convict Hayne on Mrs. Atkins’ evidence alone, but it would be unsafe to do so without corroborative evidence. The ground for corroboration was the exact description of Haynes’ premises given by Mrs. Atkins and also a conversation betweeh Hilton and Haynes. There were only three possible explanations of Mrs. Atkins’ death. One was that she died from septic abortion caused by natural abortion; two, that she died from septic abortion caused by an operation other than by accused; three, that she died of septic abortion, caused ‘by an operation performed by accused. The evidence seemed to point to the third being correct. Louis Bruce Stringer, medical officer at the Timaru hospital, gave evidence that Mrs. Atkins when admitted was suffering from the effects of miscarriage. Cross-examined, he said the case was one of septic abortion. An abortion might be either from manipulation or natural causes, and there was nothing to show from which deceased had suffered.

Mrs. Atkins’ depositions, were tendered by the Crown. Frederick Alfred Hilton, a brother of Mrs. Atkins, stated that he went to Haynes* shop and in the course of conversation with Haynes he said his sister was there and he had come for her. Mrs. Atkins wls brought in and they left. Witness was not questioned by the defence.

Detective Reid gave evidence respecting the arrest of Haynes and the appointments of the premises. This closed the Crown’s case.

/'nr the defence Mr. Hanlon said he would not call evidence.

Addressing the jury, Mr. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor) said the suggestion that a miscarriage was brought about by natural causes should be dismissed immediately in view of the nature of the evidence. The question for the jury was whether the prisoner was the man who had brought about the miscarriage. The woman’s story was perfectly clear and consistent, and was amply corroborated. •

Mr. Hanlon, for accused, said that in law Mrs. Atkins was an accomplice of Hayne, because she was alleged to have gone to him and asked for an operation. Had they, he asked, been presented with her’evidence in a satisfactory way? They had been unable to witness her demeanour in giving evidence and under cross-examination. All they had was a typewritten document containing her evidence—statements made before someone else. Would they be prepared to. convict the prisoner upon that without corroboration? Surely not. The evidence in corroboration must tend *o show that prisoner was the man who procured the miscarriage of the woman, and had such corroboration been presented? Was there corroboration of an illegal operation having been performed upon the woman? He contended there was not. After commenting on the evidence brought forward by the Crown, Mr. Hanlon said it was not sufficient for the Crown to come along with a statement by a deceased woman. If there were any flaws at all in it he submitted that serious flaws had been exposed. The Crown harped upon her description of the place, but it proved nothing. The corroboration was the weakest possible, and it had gone to show that Mrs. Atkins had not told the whole truth about the matter. The jury retired at 3.45 p.m. and returned at 8.6 p.m., the foreman announcing that there was no hope ol coming to an agreement. The Crown Prosecutor moved for a new trial on the 27th inst., which was granted. The accused was liberated on bail in £lOOO.