CHEMIST ACQUITTED

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20278, 21 August 1937, Page 8

CHEMIST ACQUITTED

SUPPLYING NOXIOUS PILLS' I JURY’S SHORT RETIREMENT. SUPREME COURT HEARING. Following a retirement of fifteen minutes, the Jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the Supremo Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon in the case in which Kenneth Patrick Blair, chemist, of Hamilton, was charged with attempting to supply noxious pills knowing that they were to be used to procure an abortion. The «ase was heard before Mr Justice Callan. Mr 11. T. Gillies conducted the prosecution, and Mr N. S. Johnson appeared for Blair. | In the box. Detective-Sergeant J. Thompson described a visit he mado to accused’s shop and, later, the taking of a statement from accused, which was read to the court, at the detective office. Prior to taking accused’s statement witness had read out portions of the statements of three witnesses bearing on the case. Witness also described a visit made to the girl's house, where he had secured the pills. Cross-examined, witness said that there was no suggestion that accused was carrying on illegal practices. Accused In Witness-box. The hearing of the detective-ser-geant completing the case for the prosecution, the case for the defence was opened, and Rlair was put In the witness-box. Pills such as those supplied. he said, were part of the ordinary stock carried by a chemist. His own practice had been not to sell them except under a doctor's prescription. | lie had prepared them for the girl because she looked very miserable and 111, but not with any knowledge of her real condition. The pills he had supplied were much weaker in their action than others which he could have supplied. They had only a regulative function, and accused had never known of them being used for any other purpose. Accused described conversations which he had had with the young man who wished to marry the girl. The man had informed accused of the girl’s condition, whereupon accused had | stated that if he had known that he j would not have sold the pills. In the I second conversation accused had told I the young man that there was nc | danger of abortion. At neither Inter-

view bad any mention been made of the police. j "It would be monstrous to ask you to convict on the evidence given you i to-day," said Mr Johnson to the Jury J when summing up for the defence. Ho described Hie case for the prose- [ cufion of pathetically weak. The evid- | once of the young man who wished to | marry the girl, he contended, might, j be regarded as at least unreliable, and Ihe suggested that technically Hie mother and step-sister might be re- ; garded ns accomplices. Apart from i the testimony of the youth, that of j these two women was the basis of the ! ease for the Crown. Accused had j taken proper precautions regarding the sale of the pills, he had made inquiries I to ensure that they would not be used Improperly, and It was really the j precautions he had taken that had : brought him to his present position. “An Unusual Charge.” \ Summing up for the prosecution, j Mr Gillies laid emphasis on the statej ment made by accused that he had sold the pills because be had felt sorry for the girl, which, counsel sub- | milled, might be interpreted as meaning that accused had wittingly done wrong, out of a feeling of pity. He stressed Hie duly of the jury to bring | In a verdict according io the law and not according to what they might feel Hie law should be. "This is an unusual charge," said

His Honour In his address to the J Jury. It was not a charge of aceom- 1 plishing abortion, or even of supplying or procuring abortion; but Instead a charge of attempting to supply a 2 noxious thing knowing It to bo Intended for an unlawful purpose. Regarding Hie, interpretation of Hie word "attempted." His Honour said that one could attempt tho Impossible and be 1 prosecuted for it. If accused sold Hie pills for a normal purpose. In good faith, he most emphatically was Innocent, and would * have lo he acquitted. 'The pills were s capable of producing an abortion. * however, and if they were supplied f by accused with that as their object, ( I" Ills knowledge, thou lie was guilty. ? It was for Hie Crown to prove its v accusation, if the jury felt they did '< not honestly know for what purpose f not proved its case and accused must ' be ncquitted. Regarding I lie sugges- ' lion of "accomplices," His Honour said a judge ought lo warn a Jury against f eon\icting on the testimony of accompbces alone. Such a circumstance, r however, did not arise in the present ' Following a brief retirement, the 1 jury returned a verdict of not guilty I _ *' i 1