Catherine Ashton, a married woman, who, it will be remembered, figured as a witness in the Clements murder case, was arrested by Chief-detective Campbell yesterday on a charge of having performed an illegal operation on a girl of about twenty years of age. She was brought before the Court this morning, and remanded for a week. The girl is at present in the hospital, and is likely to be there for some time, her condition being somewhat serious. -Evening Star, 4/10/1899.
GENERAL TELEGRAMS. [PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Napier, This Day.
A very sharp shock of earthquake was felt here at 8.5 o'clock this morning.
Christchurch, This Day. Goodwin has been decided on as the walking representative of the New Zealand Amateur Athletic Association at the Championship Meeting at Brisbane.
Dunedin, This Day. Alfred T. Price, chemist, has been arrested on a charge of conspiring with Catherine Ashton to perform an illegal operation on Ellen Sequin. Price and the woman Ashton will be jointly charged on Wednesday. -Evening Post, 16/10/1899.
Using An Illegal Instrument
[per press association]. Dunedin, October 19. At the Police Court to-day, before G. O. Graham, S. M., Catherine Ashton was charged that on or about the 6th Sept she unlawfully used a certain instrument upon Ellen Sequin. Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence, and Mr J. F. M. Fraser for the prosecution. The evidence went to show that the girl, who is a domestic servant, consulted Price, a chemist, and was under treatment by him. That proving unsuccessful Price said he would see a woman about the matter, and when the girl called again she received the address of Mrs Ashton. The girl went to Mrs Ashton, and giving her L5 the operation was performed. The girl soon got about, but she afterwards became ill and went to the hospital. When the doctors found out what had taken place and communicated with the police the accused was committed for trial and bail was fixed at two sureties of L100 each. Alfred Price and Catherine Ashton were then charged with conspiring to commit a crime punishable by hard labor for life.
Mr Fraser, for the prosecutor, and Mr Solomon appoared for Price, and Mr Hanlon for Mrs Ashton. The evidence was much the same as in the previous case.
The Magistrate said that the matter was so serious that he would throw the responsibility on the Supreme Court. Accused were committed for trial. -West Coast Times, 20/10/1899.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL OPERATION.
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.
Catherine Ashton, who was defended by Mr Hanlon, was brought before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., on the 18th, and charged with having, about the 6th of September, unlawfully used a certain instrument on one Ellen Sequin.
Mr Fraser, in opening, pointed out that the offence was one punishable with imprisonment for life. The accused was a married woman resident in Manor place, and the principal witness in the case was a girl named Sequin, a domestic servant resident in Dunedin. She consulted a chemist named Price, and for some two or three months was under treatment, which proved unsuccessful. On the 30th of August he told her that he would see a woman about her case. He did not then state the name of the woman, nor give any particulars that would lead to her identity. In consequence of what she was told subsequently she went to a house, the door of which was opened by a girl, and asked to see accused. Accused came forward, and the girl Sequin told her that Alf. Price had sent her. Accused replied, "Oh, yes. I have seen Alf. Price about you." A conversation then took place as to what the fee would be. The girl Sequin had no knowledge of what was going to be done to her, and said she was in somewhat poor circumstances, asking what the fee was. Accused replied that her fee was usually £10 but in this case, as the girl was poor, she would take £5 from her. She said not to tell Price, as he was in the habit of taking most of the money. She told the girl to come back on the 30th September with the £5. On that date the girl returned with the money, and the operation was performed. The girl went about her work afterwards, but became very ill, and had to go to the hospital, where the doctors found out that the girl had been maltreated, and very properly informed the police. The girl ultimately recovered. The whole facts came out at the hospital. A warrant was issued for the arrest of accused, and the detectives went to her house to execute it. Chief-detective Campbell told her he wanted to search her bedroom and she said it was upstairs, when they were in it all the time. The detective asked her to 'go up' with him, but she replied, "No. You go up." They, however, went upstairs together, and reached a room in which there were one or two small beds. The detective said "This is not your bedroom," and accused replied "No, my bedroom is downstairs." A search was made in the downstairs room, and a number of articles found in a box in it. On the detective picking up one of these she said, "For God's sake give that back to me for the sake of my children." The detective declined to do so, and she then said she had been using it on herself. The girl Sequin made a full statement of the facts to the police, and the young man who went with her to the house and gave her the £5 also made a full statement.
Ellen Sequin gave evidence in keeping with counsel's opening statement.
Thomas Scurr said he saw £5 in the possession of the girl Sequin on the evening of September 6, and saw her leave Mrs Ashton's house.
Dr G. P. Brown gave evidence as to Miss Sequin's condition when admitted to the hospital, and added that the instrument produced might, if used on the dates named, cause the result which the prosecution said was the result.
Dr Black also gave evidence, after which an adjournment was made for lunch.
Chief-detective Campbell, in his evidence said that on the 3rd inst. he visited accused's house, accompanied by Detective Cooney and Constable Hill. He saw accused there, read the warrant, and arrested her. She replied, "No," and after a pause, added, "I don't know the girl." Witness said he wanted to search her bedroom, and asked where it was. She answered that it was upstairs. He asked her to accompany him, but she replied that he could go up by himself. Witness replied that she must go with him, and they went upstairs. When witness saw that the room he was shown to had been used by children he asked her if that was not the children's room, and accused replied "Yes; my bedroom is downstairs." Mrs Ashton led the way to the room indicated, and witness and Detective Cooney searched it, and found a number of articles produced, amongst which was the exhibit marked "A," afterwards handed to Dr Black for examination. Mrs Ashton begged him to give her this back, saying that she had used it on herself.
To Mr Hanlon: None of the articles mentioned were taken out of a portmanteau, to witness's knowledge. All the articles but two were taken out of a tin box, or from the dressing table. If there was any conversation about rabbit nets, witness had no recollection of taking part in it.
Detective Cooney gave evidence as to the search, and in cross-examination said that certain of the articles produced came out of a portmanteau. If anyone said it came out of a tin box it would be wrong.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Hanlon intimated that he did not propose to address the court at the present juncture.
Accused was then committed for trial, bail being allowed in two sureties of £100 each.
Mr Hanlon urged that the bail should not be increased.
Mr Fraser pointed out that accused now stood committed for trial for a very grave offence.
Mr Hanlon: Which cannot be proved.
The bail was fixed at the sum mentioned.
THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE.
Alfred Price and Catherine Ashton were then charged with conspiring to commit a crime punishable with hard labour for life.
Mr Fraser appeared to prosecute, Mr Hanlon for Mrs Ashton, and Mr Solomon for Price.
Mr Fraser said he proposed to endeavour to prove to the court that the two accused persons conspired between them to commit this crime. He could not prove that the two persons came actually into contact with each other, neither was it necessary he should do so. It was sufficient if he showed that they had common design to commit a crime, and conspired to commit it. It was not necessary for him to open the facts. He had done that in the last case, and he would only be recapitulating. However, some additional evidence would be given. He proposed to lead evidence to show that the accused Price knew that the girl was in the condition she was — the fact of his treatment of her showed that knowledge. Counsel would then show that Price told the girl that she would have to see a woman whom he would see about it, and two days afterwards he told her he had seen the woman, gave her the address, and sent her there.
Ellen Sequin in her evidence said Mrs Ashton told her not to go back to Price, and not to tell him that she had been there, because she (Mrs Ashton) had only got £5, and Price would be wanting some of it from her.
To the Bench: Mrs Ashton seemed to expect her.
Thomas Scurr, Dr Black, Dr G. P. Brown, Detective Cooney, and Chief-detective Campbell also gave evidence, the latter saying that Price said, "I am innocent. Do I look like a guilty, man? As a matter of fact, I don't know the woman."
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Solomon said there was a difficult question of law involved, though he doubted if it was well to go into it then. He was quite prepared to argue that there was no conspiracy in the case. The view taken by his learned friend did not in any way amount to conspiracy. Conspiracy was when two persons combined to do an illegal act, or a legal act in an illegal way. The basis of conspiracy was that the conspirators must combine to do between them an illegal act — an agreement between two persons that they would do such and such a thing. Now, it was not pretended that there was anything of the kind here. The girl's evidence was that Price having failed, he had said he would see a woman to whom she (the girl) might go. He had apparently seen Mrs Ashton, and had sent the girl to her. There was no suggestion that Price took any part in the procuring of the operation. An agreement made between persons was not conspiracy to commit a crime. The evidence for the Crown disproved there was conspiracy; because Mrs Ashton had said to the girl that she was not to go back to Price, and not to tell him that she had given her (Mrs Ashton) any money. It was foolish to say that it was conspiracy.
Mr Fraser said the question of conspiracy or no conspiracy was a matter of evidence. The inference was that Price would not commit the crime himself, but got Mrs Ashton to do it. He said to the girl he would see a woman and arrange --
Mr Solomon: Pardon me!
Mr Fraser: He said, practically, I am not going to do this crime myself, but I am going to get a tool to do it.
Mr Solomon: I don't object to you putting evidence so long as you put it properly.
Mr Fraser: I submit that a prima facie case of conspiracy has been abundantly proved.
His Worship said he had no doubt in his mind that there was conspiracy, but the question was, Was there sufficient? The matter was such a serious one that he would throw the responsibility of settling the question upon a higher court.
Both accused were then committed for trial, Price being liberated on two sureties of £100 each, the other accused to enter into her own recognisance. -Otago Witness, 26/10/1899.
SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
MRS ASHTON'S CASE.
Catherine Ashton, who had been on bail, answered to her name this morning and pleaded not guilty to a charge of conducting an illegal operation.
Mr Hanlon appeared for the defence, and challenged three of the persons called as jurors, whilst Mr Fraser (the Crown Prosecutor) caused five persons to stand aside.
The trial was very much on the lines of the preliminary proceedings in the Police Court.
The witnesses for the Crown were Ellen Thomas Scurr, Professor Black, Detective Campbell, Detective Cooney, Dr G. P. Brown, and Plain-clothes Constable Hill.
Mr Hanlon addressed the jury at length. First he called attention to the way in which the girl had given her evidence. She answered glibly enough when asked questions implicating the accused, but declined until ordered by the Judge to say anything that might tell against the man who got her into trouble. Further, her evidence was not corroborated in its main feature. There was nothing to show that there was ever anything wrong with the girl. As to Scurr, he was a party to the offence if there had been an offence. With regard to the evidence of the police, what they said as to the accused's remarks during the search was entirely uncorroborated, and the jury would not have failed to notice that there was no attempt to conceal the articles which the police found. He (Mr Hanlon) put it that the girl was an accomplice and the instigator of whatever was done, Scurr was also an accomplice; and apart from these witnesses, who as accomplices were interested and therefore not to be believed, there was no evidence of a crime.
His Honor, referring to the question of accomplices, said it was competent for a jury to convict on the corroborated testimony of accomplices, but Judges always advised juries not to convict on such evidence.
The jury retired at 2.55 p.m., and had not returned by 4 p.m. -Evening Star, 29/11/1899.
SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)
CATHERINE ASHTON FOUND GUILTY.
The jury were out an hour and twentyfive minutes yesterday afternoon. Returning at 4.20, the foreman said that they had agreed and found accused guilty.
Mr Hanlon, who had appeared for the defence, said that Mrs Ashton was very ill, suffering from organic disease of a serious and acute character, and he would like to know if His Honor would consider that in fixing the term of imprisonment.
His Honor: I do not think so, Mr Hanlon. She will be examined by the medical officer of the gaol, and if she is suffering from illhealth which would render a mitigation of the sentence desirable, that would be a matter for the discretion of the Crown, hereafter. I do not think I should take that into consideration now.
Mr Hanlon: Just so, your Honor. I merely wanted to know your Honor's view of the matter.
His Honor: What is known of the accused?
Mr Fraser: Nothing, your Honor. She is a married woman.
His Honor (to prisoner): The offence of which you have been convicted is an exceedingly serious one, and I am afraid from what has come out in the evidence that it is not the only occasion upon which you have been guilty of a similar practice, the evidence certainly points to the act of which you have been convicted as being part of a system. As I have already indicated to vour counsel, I shall not take into consideration the state of your health in mitigation of your sentence. If the state of your health is serious in any way it will always be open to the Crown at a future date to mitigate your sentence in such a way according to its pleasure. That will be a matter for future consideration. I will pass sentence as if you were in sound health. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for seven years and kept to hard labor. -Evening Star, 30/11/1899.
OTAGO LETTER
THE SUPREME COURT.
The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court presented only ordinary features, with the single exception that it included a charge against a woman named Catherine Ashton of having performed an illegal operation. The evidence against the accused was perfectly conclusive, and the jury deliberated for only a comparatively short time in arriving at their verdict. The unfortunate woman completely collapsed when she received her sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, an appeal for leniency, on the ground that she was suffering from a severe organic disease, being met with the statement from the Bench that if an examination by the gaol surgeon established that she was so suffering that would afford ground for the subsequent exercise of clemency towards her. Mr Justice Williams, in passing sentence, expressed the belief that the crime of which the woman was convicted was not so rare as it should be. The "Star,” taking up this parable, asserts roundly that fetal crime is rife, and suggests that there are well-known establishments at which it is practised. The woman Ashton herself seems to have had a reputation for practising it. It was one of the fancies of the wretched man Clements, who paid the penalty last Easter twelvemonths for the murder or his wife, that she was in the habit of visiting Mrs Ashton’s. This may have been a delusion on his part, but it showed that the name of this woman was known among a certain class of people at that time as one who was prepared to treat women. -NZ Mail, 14/12/1899.
Catherine Ashton does not appear in the newspapers after her sentencing. There is a Catherine Ashton buried in Dunedin's Southern Cemetery, her date of death being October 1st, 1907. If she is the same person as was tried for an "illegal operation," she would have died soon after finishing her sentence.
And what of Alfred Price, chemist? He advertises his shop on the corner of Walker and Princes streets in 1886. Walker St has been renamed Carroll St, possibly due to its reputation as being part of the area known as "the devil's half acre" at the time. He features as a witness in another sad case, one of infanticide. He died in 1914.
DEATHS.
PRICE. — On May 8, at his residence, 4 Richardson street, St. Kilda, Alfred Thomas Price, chemist; aged 56 years. -Otago Daily Times, 9/5/1914.
Southern cemetery, Dunedin. DCC photo.
Southern cemetery, Dunedin. DCC photo.
No comments:
Post a Comment