An inquest will be opened at the Dunedin Hospital this evening on Catherine Stanley, a married woman, who died in that institution yesterday afternoon under circumstances that warrant inquiry. Formal evidence will be taken, and the proceedings adjourned ponding further investigation. -Evening Star, 7/10/1915.
MRS STANLEY'S DEATH
ALLEGED CRIMINAL AND BRUTAL ABORTION
REMARKABLE REVELATION
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
On Wednesday of last week Mr. W. Y. Widdowson, S.M., in his capacity as coroner, held an inquest on the death of Mrs. Catherine Stanley, a married woman, who died at the Dunedin Hospital on the 6th inst. The inquiry evoked some extraordinary evidence, many of the disclosures being of a highly sensational nature.
Chief-detective Bishop conducted the inquiry on behalf of the police. Lawyer Bedford appeared for Maud Marion Turner, and Lawyer Lemon saw to the interests of Percival Alfred Stanley, the husband of the deceased lady.
The first witness was Dr. J. J. Bowie, assistant medical superintendent at the City Hospital. He said that Mrs. Catherine Stanley was admitted to the institution on September 30. She was a married woman and said to be pregnant from 4 to 4 1/4 months. She said she felt very weak and run down, and that for a week before admission she had pains which continued off and on. She further said she had a slight haemorrhage on September 29 and on the afternoon of the 30th pains and bleeding were severe. The patient was admitted under Dr. North's care, but on the evening of October 5 witness attended her specially. On the morning of October 0 he proceeded to relieve the haemorrhage, and while doing so, by digital method he encountered an aperture. He concluded then the case was exceptional, but at the time he did not realise he was dealing with any criminal abortion, or he would have examined everything more particularly. He removed the foetus which was dead. It had to be removed. But before removing this be discovered matter issuing from the uterus. The patient recovered from the operation, but shortly after 1 p.m. she suddenly got blue around the mouth, and began to gasp. In a
FEW MINUTES SHE WAS DEAD. "I considered then," said witness, "that the cause of death was due to an embolism," The patient had been Dr. North's all the time, but as Dr. North was taking some holidays, witness took the case in hand for' the time being. Dr. Williams sent her to the hospital, and supplied the history of the case. The first history supplied was that she was a married woman with two children.
To Chief-detective Bishop: The miscarriage occurred in the hospital, and the foetus may have been alive when the patient was admitted. On the other hand, it seemed to witness that it had been dead for several days. Dr. Williams did not send in a note with the case; he telephoned. She was admitted in the night as an urgent case.
Coroner: If you had known when you first Investigated the case that there had been an illegal interference, could you have saved the woman? — Probably, I would have investigated everything more fully and treated accordingly. On October 6, it would not have mattered, however, how much I knew.
Continuing, witness said he was present at the post mortem performed by Dr, Roberts, and fully agreed with the latter doctor's findings.
William Stewart Roberts, pathologist, stated that by direction of the coroner he made a post mortem on the 7th inst. He discovered that the abdominal cavity contained certain fluid and showed signs of peritonitis. The pelvic organs were
INTENSELY CONGESTED AND BRUISED, and he found a laceration on certain parts. The laceration extended into the uterus itself, and easily admitted the finger. His inference was that very great force had been used with some blunt instrument. A covering of the bladder had been stripped off. All the other organs were carefully examined, including the brain, and were found normal. The edges of the laceration were "fluffy." From the history of the case and the manner of her death, taken together with the post-mortem findings, he concluded that her death was due to sudden heart failure consequent upon the effect of toxic absorption from the pelvic lesions. The toxic absorption would be increased by the manipulation necessary to emptying the uterus. There was not any indication of septicaemia. Witness was perfectly satisfied that an unskilled attempt had been made to procure abortion, which was primarily the cause of her death. It was plain that a blunt instrument had been used, and used roughly, resulting in a laceration. He should say that the instrument had been used at least a week from the death.
Marjorie Houston, married, and mother of deceased, said her daughter had been married to Stanley six years. They lived in Grosvenor-street, and had two children — two boys. Two months ago her daughter came to her house and said that her husband had got certain pills for her from a Mr. Towler, which had made her very ill. Deceased said she was using the pills to
BRING ON A MISCARRIAGE, but they made her so very ill that she gave up taking them. She further said a few days later that her husband advised her to go to a Mrs. Towler, whom she saw. She said Mrs. Towler lived at Queen's Drive, Musselburgh, and that she made an appointment to meet Mrs. Towler again in the evening in Mr. Halligan's butchery, corner of King Edward-street and Bay View-road. She was going to meet Mrs. Towler then, and go from the meeting-place to Mrs. Turner's, who lived at some "Crescent" near the Forbury Park racing course. She said Mrs. Towler had been doing such a lot at "the business" "that she will fix me up, too!" "You please yourself, Katie," said witness to her, "but be careful - I don't know who these women are." When witness again saw her daughter, a few days later, Mrs. Stanley said she had seen Mrs. Turner, and had made an arrangement to go some night, but she had to pay £6 down first. Mrs. Turner had said that she would not put a finger on her until the money was paid. Mrs. Stanley did pay £5, Mrs. Towler being with her all the time. When the money was paid Mrs. Turner took deceased into a bed-room and put her on a stretcher. Mrs. Turner got some warm water in a basin and warmed her (Mrs. Turner's) hands in it. Then Mrs. Turner
COMMENCED TO ILLEGALLY OPERATE so as to procure a miscarriage. So far as witness's daughter could have seen, Mrs. Turner used her fingers or finger. Mrs. Stanley, however, under the very rough handling and treatment, fell nervous and very pained, and "sang out," which Mrs, Turner did not like. After that Mrs. Stanley visited Mrs. Turner several time, and Mrs. Turner repeated the same operation until deceased could not stand the treatment any longer. Deceased always met Mrs. Towler first at Halligan's butchery, and from there went with Mrs. Towler to Mrs. Turner's. When deceased refused to go near Mrs. Turner any more, the husband, Mr. Stanley, demanded the money back from Turner. Mrs. Turner at first would not return the money until Stanley went and bullied it out of her. They got the money back in two instalments — £2 10s each time. Witness's daughter counted the money in her presence. Deceased was never very well after Mrs. Turner's operation. She complained of her health going down fast. About a month after her last visit to Mrs. Turner the husband called in Dr. Williams. When Dr. Williams had examined her, deceased told witness that she was 4 1/4 months pregnant. Dr. Williams did not call again until September 30, when he ordered her to the hospital. Stanley was never kind to his wife, and did not look after her properly. On October 2 witness visited the hospital and her daughter said, "Mother,
SHALL I TELL THEM what has been done to me?" Witness, unfortunately, would not advise her.
Mr. Bishop: Did you not think it your duty to tell her what to do? — I felt powerless, and really did not know.
She confided in you over the operation, too, and you would not advise her? — Well, she put her husband before me, and I did not prevent her.
Yet you reported the matter to the police? — The husband wanted to bury her before I »aw her; that was why I reported it. He wanted her buried at once out of his sight.
Coroner: You say the husband did not treat her well? — He did not, he was drunk nearly every night and he treated her badly.
How did your daughter discover those people, Mrs Towler and Mrs. Turner? — She told me her husband had told her of "such people" who did "such operations." She never know of such people till he told her, and neither did I hear of them till then.
Percival Albert Stanley, storeman, deceased woman's husband, stated that it was about four months ago that he learned that his wife was pregnant. It was the mother-in-law, the last witness, who suggested "the thing first." He did get a box of pills from Mr. D. A. Towler. The mother-in-law and daughter had been talkling, and it was the mother-in-law that first suggested his getting pills to restore her to her usual condition. He was not sure if she were pregnant then. When he spoke to the man, Towler, and the latter got witness the pills. His wife took the pills, and they gave her "a good shaking up." They did not, however, (portion missing) Towler said at the time he got the pills that if they did not operate in the desired way, witness should send his wife on to Mrs. Towler and they would see what they could do. Witness told his wife this. One evening his wife said that she had seen Mrs Towler, and that Mrs Towler was to make some arrangements with another woman.
Coroner: Then you did know your wife's condition? — Well, I thought so.
Witness remained at home when his wife went to meet Mrs. Towler at Halligan's shop. When she returned she said she
HAD BEEN INTERFERED WITH by the woman Mrs. Towler had taken her to see. She further said that she had paid £5 to the same woman.
Coroner: Did you know that she was to pay £5? — Yes.
Who told her about the £5?— l don't know; but Mrs. Towler most have told her.
Whose money was it? — Mine, which she had saved from my wages.
Another time when she returned witness was in bed, and there was nothing said. She paid a third visit, and when she returned home she was crying, and said she had been "bounced" by Mrs. Towler and a Mrs. Turner. Mrs. Turner had been trying to do the operation and couldn't do it.
Coroner: How about this bouncing business? — It was over the money. Seeing that the job had not been done, she wanted the money back. Mrs. Turner reckoned she had the job done and wanted to keep the money.
A few nights after, witness went with his wife to get the money back. His wife went to the door, and Mrs. Turner came out and paid out £2 10/-. On the next occasion he spoke to Mrs. Turner for the first time. She gave back the balance of the money, and said she was sorry she could not understand his wife. Witness did not, at any time, see Mrs. Towler until after his wife's third visit to Mrs. Turner. He then saw Mrs. Towler at her house in Queen's Drive and said if he did not get the money back there would be trouble. For about a month after the third visit to Mrs. Turner's, his wife appeared well; then a discharge made its appearance. His wife refused to have a doctor. As time went on the discharge became worse and he fetched in Dr. Williams by telephone. He did not tell the doctor what had caused his wife's Illness. The doctor called in the evening and left a prescription. His wife told witness, when the doctor had left, that it was a threatened miscarriage. She recovered somewhat up to the 30th, but on that date she was very bad. He brought in Nurse Manns, and also rang up the doctor. When the doctor came, he ordered her to the hospital at once. Witness visited his wife at the hospital several times, but
MADE NO EXPLANATION to the hospital authorities as to the cause of her illness.
Coroner: You did not connect her illness with the visits she had paid to Mrs. Turner? — I did not, sir.
Mr. Bishop: Is it not a fact that you objected to your brother-in-law reporting the matter to the police? — I never objected.
Did you not say to him "If you do that it will get into Norton's 'Truth,' and get me 5 years?" — I did say that if it got into Norton's "Truth" it would only advertise the family and his own sister.
Maud Marion Turner, the alleged criminal operator, was the next witness. She is a dark furtive-looking female of apparently some 50 summers. Heavily under-lipped and shifty-eyed. Her evidence was simply extraordinary. She said she was a married woman, residing at Forbury-crescent, St Kilda. Her husband was under lock and key since a shooting affray that took place in the home some years back. She had 8 children, three of whom were married. She knew Mrs. Towler for several years, but never at any time did Mrs. Towler bring a woman to her house.
Chief-detective Bishop: Do you know a woman named Mrs. Stanley? — No.
You swear you don't? — I do!
Do you know her husband, Mr. Stanley? — No.
Will you swear that no woman has been to your place for you to abort her? — (Emphatically): Yes! I swear no woman has ever been at my place for any such purpose.
Have you visited females for the purpose of abortion? — No.
Stanley says you received £5 to abort his wife? — It's untrue.
He says that on two occasions he and the deceased visited you, and on each occasion you gave him back £2 10s — the money Mrs. Stanley gave you? — It's untrue. All
SUCH STATEMENTS ARE UNTRUE.
Do you deny that a number of young women visit your place "to got fixed up?" — I do. I never did the like in my life.
Have you received registered letters? — Yes, from my married daughter in Auckland.
You swear that no one ever handed you registered letters? — Yes, I do.
Were you ever questioned before by the police regarding your adventures in abortion operations? — No, never!
Did not Constable Heard question you? — He once questioned me about a girl he said was staying with me. That was all.
Did he not question you about the abortion you performed on her? — No; certainly not!
Lawyer Bedford: How did you become friendly with Mrs. Towler? — Well, you see, I have a bad leg and she used to attend me for it, and bring the "hointment."
Susan Towler, the alleged tout of Mrs. Turner's, next went into the witness-box. She is a woman of some 88 summers, irregular-featured and heavy-jowled. She said she was Walter Albert Towler's wife, and resided with him at No. 8 Normanby-street, Musselburgh. She admitted she lately resided at Queen's Drive. She knew Mrs. Turner very well. Indeed, she and Mrs. Turner were real friends, but she never fetched any woman to Mrs. Turner for any purpose whatever at any time. All Stanley's evidence was a "make-up." She met Stanley once with Mr. Towler. Stanley did call at her house over two years ago with another gentleman. Her husband read out Mrs. Stanley's death in the newspaper and that was how she heard of it.
You knew Mrs. Stanley? — No! You swear you did not know that woman? — Yes.
I NEVER SAW HER IN MY LIFE.
Did Stanley ever call to see you over the £5? — Absolutely untrue!
But you met Mrs, Stanley by appointment? — Never!
And brought her to Mrs. Turner? — I did not!
You know Hannigan's shop — you deal there? — Yes.
Coroner: Have you ever made an appointment to meet anyone there? — No, sir.
Then all the deceased, Mrs, Stanley, told her mother is untrue? — Yes.
Have you been approached by other young women to perform illegal operations? — No,
Walter Alfred Towler, husband of the previous witness, and a little man exhibiting a very forced facial grin, said he knew Stanley for several years, but did not know his wife. He recollected very well getting a lot of pills for Stanley over three months ago. Stanley asked him to get a box of female pills, and he went to his mother's shop in the Arcade and got them.
Chief Detective: Do you know what these pills are for? — No! I never take 'em myself.
Rose Heriot Mann, nurse, said she knew Mr. and Mrs. Stanley. Stanley called her in to his wife on Sept. 30. She said she did not attend such cases, but knowing them so well she went. She saw that Mrs. Stanley was in a very serious condition, and ordered the doctor at once.
Did Mrs. Stanley tell you anything about an illegal operation? — No.
Edith Elizabeth Towler, a very fat and strange-looking female of any age, said her mother was a lady's specialist, carrying on her lucrative biz. in the Royal Arcade. She assisted mother. About three months ago her brother came to her shop for a box of "female" pills. She asked who wanted the pills, as she would not sell them to anyone. Her brother said that the party who wanted them was
"A WHITE MAN" AND ALL RIGHT.
Coroner: What are the pills for? — They are corrective pills for ladies.
If a lady took a large quantity of the pills would it cause a miscarriage? — No, as there is nothing in them for that purpose. In what way are they corrective then? — They aid in correcting menstruation troubles.
In Mrs. Stanley's case if the pills brought on menstruation, wouldn't that be causing a miscarriage? — We never supply them for that purpose.
In what way are they corrective then? — They aid in correcting menstruation troubles.
In Mrs. Stanley's case if the pills brought on menstruation, wouldn't that be causing a miscarriage? — We never supply them for that purpose.
What price are the pills? — 3s 6d a box.
Who makes them? — My mother.
Why won't you let anyone have them if they are harmless? — It wouldn't do, as they are useless in many cases except to correct what they are intended for. But anyone could take them as they are harmless.
James Houston, deceased's brother, said that he first knew of his sister's illness when she was taken to hospital. He knew of the attempt to procure a miscarriage a month before she went to the hospital. He told his mother to tell deceased to inform the doctors.
Coroner: It's a pity they did not follow your advice.
Witness got a great shock when he heard she had died. Stanley was seeing about a coffin, but witness said he would go to the hospital to see about an inquest. He met Dr. Williams and told him there had been an illegal operation. The doctor merely replied, "You can do nothing about that." He went down to the police then and reported it. In the evening as he was having tea, Stanley said to him. "You'll get me seven years and there will be a lot in the 'Truth' about it." Witness said he could not help that.
Ernest Harry Williams, medical practitioner, stated that about a week or ten days prior to September 30 he was called in to see deceased by telephone. He found her looking thinner, but not acutely ill. The impression he got at the time was that she wanted to know whether she was pregnant or not, or if there was a threatened miscarriage. He examined her briefly and found she was pregnant, and that there was a slight threatening of a miscarriage. He told her then then if she did miscarry he would not be willing to attend her in her own house. He did not have any suspicion whatever of any Interference, though it
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE that there had been such.
The Coroner: Why were you not willing to attend her in her own home? — The conditions of the home were not suitable for attending here there.
On the next occasion he saw her, September 30, he ordered her removal to the hospital. He informed the hospital authorities that she was threatening a miscarriage. She did not look seriously ill, though she was loosing some blood.
Coroner: You did not suspect interference? — No. I had known her for some time as a very decent little woman.
Did the husband show any anxiety about his wife? — I thought he was very sensible.
How did she appear in the hospital? — She was particularly anxious to know whether she would live through it, and that struck me as curious.
And that did not make you suspect anything? — No; I put it down to undue nervousness.
Chief Detective: Could the laceration of the womb have occurred a month prior to death? — If it did it is a most unusual case. I should say that the illegal instrument had been used a shorter period than a month before death.
If you had been told there had been an interference, would it have made any difference? — Yes, considerable. Had I been told on the first occasion I should have sent her to the hospital immediately.
Charles North, assistant gynaecologist on the honorary staff of the hospital, said he saw the deceased at 3 a.m. after admission, and questioned her as to the history of her trouble. She said she had had a hemorrhage the previous day while alone in the house. Her temperature and pulse were normal, and there was not any abdominal tenderness. He concluded it was an ordinary case of threatened miscarriage. He told her that by lying quietly resting there was a chance of saving the child. The hemorrhage ceased for the time, but
RETURNED AGAIN, AND BECAME PERSISTENT. As witness was going oft duty he had arranged with Dr. Bowie to attend the case. The foetus was removed. In an accidental miscarriage they leave the patient alone, but in the intentional there is internal examination and prompt treatment. Deceased's was supposed to be an accidental case. Witness was peculiarly struck by the fact that the poor woman had the sense of death very imminent.
Coroner: Don't patients often feel that way, doctor? — I can't recall one incident even of a patient in the hospital being so persistent as to impending death as she was.
Coroner: She was a healthy woman? — Yes.
Do you think anything could have been done to save her had you known about the interference when she was admitted? — Yes, had she had prompt attention. It was one of those rare cases of peritonitis in which the ordinary external signs were totally wanting.
THE CORONER'S CONCLUSIONS Magistrate Widdowson said: This case is a deplorable one in every way, and it is rendered still more extraordinary by the fact that not only had the interference with the deceased been performed with the cognisance of the husband, but it had been made a matter of conversation with the deceased's mother, and had been known also to the brother. The medical evidence shows clearly that an illegal operation had been performed with a blunt instrument by an unskilled person, and this criminal interference was the primary cause of death. Whether, or to what extent, it had been done at the instigation of, or under pressure from, the husband, or at the suggestion of the wife alone, or at the desire of both, there is no clear evidence to establish. But it is clear that the husband was cognisant of all that was going on, and, from his conduct from start to finish, was a party to it. At the end it must have been known, notwithstanding what the husband has said to the contrary, that deceased was ill from the cause mentioned. The husband seems to have acted in a
DESPICABLY COWARDLY MANNER. He desires the Court to believe that he thought his wife's illness not to be due to the visits, paid to to women Towler and Turner. I cannot conceive how the husband could have thought any such thing, and the truth of this is shown by the fact that he would not, on the death of his wife, take any part in informing the police of the occurrences, for fear he would get into trouble. He had no excuse at all, for he knew his wife was in a very serious condition, and if he thought what he alleged, he was a very extraordinary man. It was a cowardly thing, considering his wife's condition, to say nothing about the interference, for it has been clearly shown that if something had been said, her life might have been saved But he carefully refrained from saying anything, and the mother and brother, who knew of what had happened, also said nothing. The mother and brother may be said to have acted ignorantly, but their ignorance is inexcusable The mother even passively dissuaded the deceased from speaking by not encouraging her daughter to speak when the latter made a move towards doing so. It has been alleged that the deceased had been, taken to Mrs. Turner by Mrs. Towler, and that Mrs. Turner had performed an illegal operation for a consideration of L5, a sum returned afterwards when the operation proved unsuccessful. This is denied by Mrs. Towler and Mrs. Turner. That
THERE HAS BEEN DELIBERATE PERJURY during the Inquest, there is not the shadow of a doubt, and it is clear that an illegal operation has been performed. It is stated that whatever was done by Mrs. Turner was concluded four or five weeks before Dr. Willlams visited deceased. It is possible, but highly improbable, and the illegal operation must have been performed at least a fortnight before death. Some of the evidence that could be, and has been, admitted in un inquiry of this nature would not be considered strictly legal evidence in a court of law. It is for the police now to consider seriously the evidence, and to decide what further steps are to be taken. All I can say is that there has been an illegal operation performed, from which the deceased died. I must repeat that the husband acted in a very callous and highly reprehensible manner, and that the mother and brother were also blameworthy for not having mentioned what had happened.
THE VERDICT is that deceased died from sudden heart failure consequent upon toxic absorption from pelvic lesions caused by the use of an instrument in an illegal operation on deceased to procure a miscarriage.
"Truth" understands that the police have finally decided to take further steps in the matter. Their action is limited somewhat, but all the same there will be an additional chapter the above scandalous story. As a serious crime has been committed, will justice be vindicated upon the criminals concerned? If they are known to the police, the police ought to find a way to move. "Truth" trusts that the Minister of Justice will find a solution. The "docking" of a scapegoat will do little toward suppressing a notorious gang of female criminals known to be "vampirising" brazenly upon Dunedin's reluctant mothers married and unmarried alike. -NZ Truth, 30/10/1915.
CATHERINE STANLEY'S DEATH
THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL OPERATION
Percival Alfred Stanley in the Dock
IS ACQUITFED Of SUPPLYING PILLS FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE
Who Performed the Illegal Operation?
Detective Kemp and the Statement: "We Wanted to get at Another Party"
Stanley's Brother-in-law's Outburst: "He Murdered His Wife!"
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
At the Dunedin Supreme Court one day last week, before his -Honor Mr. Justice Sim and a jury, Percival Alfred Stanley, storeman in Dalgety's, was arraigned on the serious charge of having attempted to supply one Catherine Stanley, with noxious things, to wit, pills.
It will be remembered that Mrs. Catherine Stanley died in the Dunedin Hospital on October 6 last, and that, as the result of the Coroner's inquiry, it was established that the unfortunate woman had been subjected to an illegal operation, It was stated that a Mrs. Turner took on the operation as a result of a Mrs. Towler's suggestion and instruction. The medical evidence established the fact that
MRS. STANLEY DIED as the result bf an illegal operation unskilfully performed. During the course of the inquiry, it transpired that certain pills had been supplied the deceased woman, Mrs. Stanley, and that those pills had been procured by her husband from a Mr. Towler.
Mr. W. C. McGregor, K.C., prosecuted, and Mr. A. C. Hanlon represented the prisoner.
The case opened in the usual way by Stanley being interrogated as to whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty. Lawyer Hanlon did not hear the official query, and Stanley answered for himself from the dock that he pleaded "guilty to procuring the pills." Lawyer Hanlon then promptly jumped up and informed his Honor that he represented the prisoner and pleaded not guilty.
Crown Prosecutor McGregor: The prisoner has already pleaded guilty, your Honor.
His Honor: How does he plead, Mr. Hanlon?
Lawyer Hanlon: Not guilty.
Mr. W. C. McGregor then suggested that owing to the nature of the case, it might be advisable to clear the court, but his Honor did not consider it necessary to issue such an order.
Detective-Sergeant Kemp was the first witness. He stated that he interviewed the prisoner at his mother-in-law's house on October 9 last, when he made a statement.
Lawyer Hanlon: While While Stanley was making that statement you suggested many things to him?— I suggested nothing. I asked him a few questions here and there where his answers were not clear.
How did it come that you asked him about the pills? — I never asked him such a question, as I did not know he had given any pills to his wife. The first thing I heard about the pills was from himself. "I may say," went on the detective, "that our object in interviewing Stanley at all was
TO GET AT ANOTHER PARTY, Mrs, Turner, the woman who performed the illegal operation. I gave Stanley the plainest caution I ever gave any man before he made his statement. But he was quite eager to make one."
William Alfred Towler said he went to see the accused at Dalgety's in the month of June last. He requested witness to get him a box of female pills. Witness secured the pills from his sister and gave them to Stanley. They were not paid for.
Edith Elizabeth Towler, a very corpulent specimen of femininity, said she lived at Sunshine and helped her mother to carry on the business of lady's specialist. She got a box of pills for her brother, the previous witness. She did not know whom the pills were for.
His Honor: Who made the pills? — My mother.
Do you know what the pills are made from? — No, sir.
Dr. Bowie stated that the late Mrs. Stanley had been admitted to the Dunedin Hospital, and died there as the result of an illegal operation which had been performed some time prior to her admission to the institution. A postmortem examination revealed that an illegal operation had been performed, and that such was the cause of death.
James Houston, brother-in-law of accused, stated that when he heard of his sister's death he went to the Hospital and told them there had been an Interference and that he wanted an inquest. Dr. Willlams stated an inquest would not do any good, as Mrs. Turner could not be got at. About 6 p.m. he spoke to Stanley. He told accused he was going down to the police to see about an inquest. Stanley said, "You'll get me seven years, and there'll be a lot in 'Truth' about it. You'll show us all up." Witness duly reported the matter to the authorities.
Mr. Hanlon: Wasn't it your mother who said, "I'll get you seven years?" — Nothing of the kind: my mother said to him, "If you get seven years it will
DO YOU A LOT OF GOOD." My mother never said she'd get him seven years. He expected to get it himself, for he murdered my sister.
Have you and he had any quarrels? No, I don't bear him the slightest malice, but I want to see him get his deserts for murdering his wife. If a man murdered your sister would not you like to see him punished for it?
Mr. Hanlon: Of course.
Witness: Stanley used to come home drunk, and on one occasion he took an axe to my sister. He treated her very badly.
Mr. Hanlon: But, of course, you disliked him and dislike him still? — Certainly I disliked him. Haven't I had reason?
Percival Alfred Stanley, the accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, said that the statement he made to the police was quite correct, but it had been "pumped out" of him by questions. Regarding what the previous witness had said about him (accused) saying that he would get seven years if Houston went to the police, he would deny that. He never said it. It was Mrs. Houston who said that she would get him seven years. He and Houston were not on too friendly terms. When the police interviewed him, the first thing he was told was that his mother-in-law and son-in-law had made statements about him, and it would be as well if he made a statement. "That statement was sort of 'pumped out' of me," said the accused. "Questions had been asked me from the statement made by the mother-in-law. The pills must have been mentioned to the police previous to my telling them."
Mr. McGregor: Detective Kemp swore that you first mentioned the pills to him.
Continuing, accused said that at the time his wife was pregnant, he was not quite sure of it. She had told him she was irregular. The pills merely gave her a shake-up. He told the police that the pills had given her a shake-up.
Mr. Hanlon: Why did you tell them that? — They asked me, "How did those pills act?"
As far as you are concerned, had you anything further to do with what happened to your wife? — When the pills were not effective, I told her to go and see Mrs. Towler.
His Honor: What did she want to see Mrs Towler for? —
TO HAVE A FRIENDLY CHAT.
Mr. Hanlon: You got her the pills for quite a natural purpose? — Yes, at the time.
Mr. McGregor: Is that the first time you got those peculiar pills for the purpose? — Yes, sir.
Your wife did not want any more family? — That is so.
And you did not, either? — I did not.
When did you first become aware that there would be a child? — After she had seen Mrs. Towler.
You know what the result of the Coroner's inquest was — that your wife died as the result of an illegal operation? — Yes.
Why did you not tell Dr. Williams what had taken place? — I left that to my wife and my mother-in-law. My mother-in-law could easily have explained it if she wanted to.
Do you drink? — Yes.
Why did your mother-in-law, as you allege, say that she would get you seven years? — Over the pills. I told her to do her best.
You insisted on making a statement to the police? — I did not. The told me it would be better if I made one as my brother-in-law und mother-in-law had made one against me.
Did they not warn you that you need rot make one if you did not wish it? — Yes.
Now, about this statement of yours again: Which portion of it was
"PUMPED OUT" OF YOU? The first part, for a start Detective Kemp said that my mother-in-law stated to him that I procured certain pills for my wife, and I said I had. That's how they found out about the pills. I answered the detective quite abruptly, and he put the answers down his own way.
But you signed the statement, and you have already sworn you were warned prior to making it? — Yes.
Then the statement is quite true? — Yes.
His Honor: Since that is so, it does not matter whether the statement was elicited by question or not.
Counsel having spoken, his Honor summed up at some length, dealing strongly with some aspects of the case. After a two hours' retirement, the Jury returned to court with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged. -NZ Truth, 19/2/1916.
No comments:
Post a Comment