This is the story, to begin with, of Margaret Kendrick. She "got into trouble" in 1906 and an "illegal operation" was performed. Margaret died from complications arising from that operation.
In this publication I intend to tell the story of Margaret Kendrick and the man who performed the operation.
I do not intend to debate the ethics of such operations.
Late Telegrams
From our own Correspondent, Dunedin, 24th September.
A DUNEDIN SENSATION.
A sensation was created in the city on Saturday forenoon when it became known that James Reynolds Hayne, chemist, had been arrested on a charge of manslaughter, the circumstances being as follows: — A single woman, named Margaret Kendrick, aged 35 years, residing at Mornington, left her home on Wednesday 12th, ostensibly for the purpose of spending a holiday at Broad Bay. On the previous day (Tuesday) it is alleged that she visited the shop of the chemist now under arrest and that on the Wednesday instead of going to Broad Bay, she remained in the city where it is alleged she was subjected to an illegal operation. On Tuesday, the 18th inst., a week after she left Mornington, her friends received a telegram from her, dated Dunedin, stating she would return home that night and she did so the following day, Wednesday. She was in such a condition that Dr Evans was summoned to attend her and as the result of an examination and on the doctor’s recommendation she was removed to the hospital on Friday evening, 21st inst. Miss Kendrick’s condition was so serious that it was deemed advisable to take her dying depositions and at 11 p.m. Mr Widdowson, S. M., Inspector O’Brien, and Detectives Herbert and Cameron and Dr Falconer attended at her bedside in the hospital for this purpose. Miss Kendrick died at 3 a.m. Hayne had in his possession when arrested a six chambered loaded revolver. Bail was asked for but was refused. -Dunstan Times, 24/9/1906.
MARGARET KENDRICK'S DEATH.
THE INQUEST. The adjourned inquest on the body of Margaret Kendrick, aged thirty-five, who died at the hospital early on Saturday morning under suspicious circumstances, was continued at the Magistrate's Court this afternoon before Mr Coroner Graham and the following jury: — Messrs John Middletan Legget (foreman), Hugh Brockie, Thomas Charles Sprowle, Robert Horswell, Robert Brown Patton, and Thomas Millington.
Mr Solomon said that he appeared, with the coroner's permission, to watch the proceedings on behalf of James Reynolds Hayne, the person who was charged, and at the outset, since he did not propose to interfere during the progress of the inquiry, he would ask to be allowed to say a word or two on the peculiarity (which, of course, was unavoidable) of these proceedings. As His Worship knew, a man was charged with a criminal offence. Upon that charge he would have an opportunity of defending himself at the proper time. To-day, upon the inquiry that was to take place before His Worship, very much the same ground would be gone over, probably, as in the criminal proceedings, the difference being that to-day the person charged would have no opportunity of defending himself, whereas at the criminal trial he would have such an opportunity. What he (Mr Solomon) would wish to remark was that, as was recently pointed out before the Legislature, there was a danger in proceedings such as the present unless they were very carefully scrutinised. He was present, on behalf of the person charged, by permission, and might be allowed to put a question or two, but that was all, and the jury might be called upon, on hearing one side of the case only, to find a verdict. He (Mr Solomon) desired to impress upon the coroner, and felt sure he would see the justice of it, that whilst it was very necessary — it must be — that the jury should find a verdict as to the cause of death, that he should protect the person charged as far as lay in his power, so that any verdict that might be brought in would not prejudice him at the trial for any offence with which he might be charged. He (Mr Solomon) trusted that he was not going too far in making this request. In a small town such as this any one-sided story — as if a verdict were to be brought in that death was caused by an operation performed by the accused — must prejudice him in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the persons who would become jurors. He (Mr Solomon) felt sure that His Worship would readily fall in with his suggestion, and consider it his duty to prevent, as far as possible, the case being prejudiced by reason of the proceedings today.
Mr Graham said that he quite appreciated the reasons which had induced Mr Solomon to make these remarks. Knowing that in such cases the person accused was likely to be put in an unfair position, he would tell the jury that they were called upon primarily to find out, on behalf of the King, how and in what manner the deceased came to her death, and not connect any person with it unless there was absolutely no doubt in their minds. If there was any such doubt in their minds, it would be for them, seeing that the evidence was one-sided, to say that death was caused by some person or persons unknown, or they might confine themselves to saying that death was caused by an illegal operation.
Mr Solomon: In order that the public at large may see that any verdict that may be brought in is only a one-sided verdict, I will now take no further part in the proceedings.
Mr Calvert said that he appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of the relatives.
Margaret Bolton, the first witness called, said: I am the wife of Richard Bolton, and reside with my husband in Maclaggan street. I knew the deceased. I last saw her alive last Wednesday week (the 12th). She left our house between half-past four and five in the afternoon. She was then in her usual state of health. She told me that she was going to Portobello, to spend a holiday there.
Dr Evans said: In answer to a telephone message by Mr Lilburne, of Mornington, I went to that gentleman's house in Brunel street, Mornington, between nine and ten o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, the 19th inst., and there saw the deceased in bed. I found her in a state of collapse. Her temperature was 102deg, and her pulse 120. I asked the patient the cause, and she said she could not account for the illness at all. Witness then stated the result of his examination of deceased. He prescribed for her, and said he would see her again next morning. She had had a very bad night, complaining a great deal of abdominal pain. Continuing, witness said: The inflammation was much worse, and, in my opinion, peritonitis had set in. Her general condition was also worse. She then admitted certain things, which she gave to me in strict confidence.
Inspector O'Brien: She admitted the truth of what you had suggested to her?
Witness: Yes. She told me that the whole trouble had been brought on by drugs. I said that that was ridiculous, and she then admitted that an instrument had been used, and that it had been used by a chemist in the main street. She named the chemist.
Inspector O'Brien: Is this name well known to you?
Mr Solomon pointed out that this evidence would not be admitted at a trial. The coroner was not bound in any way, but it was within the proper exercise of his duty to exclude hearsay evidence, which could not be used at a trial.
Inspector O'Brien submitted that every tittle of evidence showing how or by what means the woman came by her death ought to be admitted.
The Coroner thought that they were bound to take all the evidence they could.
Witness, continuing, said she named Mr Hayne, who was carrying on business in Princes street as a chemist. She said the operation took place on the Wednesday evening previous in a back room of Mr Hayne's shop. She did not tell me what occurred after the operation. I explained to her the seriousness of her condition, and also told her that it was impossible for her to be nursed by her sister. She said that she would rather go to the hospital than that her relatives should know the cause of the trouble, and added that if I were asked I should say it was appendicitis. She repeated that she would not give me permission to tell what she had told me. I sent her to the hospital, and at the sister's request I went to see deceased on the Friday. I found that she was much worse. She asked me that afternoon how I thought she was going to do. I said: "Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think you have got a hope." She then asked me to go and see her sister, and to tell her all about the trouble. She said that her condition was caused by a young man who was an engineer on the Moeraki.
John T. Lilburne, residing in Mornington, said that he saw deceased at his house on the night of the 18th inst. It would be about nine o'clock She had been away from home for four or five days before that. She was supposed to have been spending a holiday at Portobello. She was then in a state of collapse. She had to be put on the sofa, and then put to bed a quarter of an hour afterwards. Witness rang up Dr Evans at once, but he could not come until next day. He advised witness to put hot water to her feet and give her a stimulant. He told the doctor that he thought she had caught cold coming up by the boat. She was very bad all night. Witness had no conversation with her at his house, but he did at the hospital on Friday night. Witness told her that he had heard what the trouble was. He said that he had forgiven her, that the doctor had told him that she would not recover, that it was her duty to tell the whole truth, and allow him to let the magistrate take her depositions. She consented. She told witness that she knew she was going to die. He stopped with her all night. She died at about eight minutes past three on the Saturday morning. Witness was present when deceased's depositions were taken by Mr Widdowson, S.M. Witness considered that it was his duty to take the stand he had taken. Deceased was always fairly healthy. She was not what would be called a robust girl, but she had never had any illness.
Dr Roberts said that, with Dr Williams he made a post mortem examination of the body on the afternoon of Saturday, the 22nd, at the hospital. He found acute general suppurative peritonitis, gangrenous inflammation, and abscesses. The cause of death was obviously due to septic infection, leading to an abscess, the rupture of which produced peritonitis. The septic infection was caused externally.
Dr E. H. Williams said that he assisted Dr Roberts. He agreed with Dr Roberts's evidence, and had nothing to add.
Inspector O'Brien: At this stage I propose to ask for a further adjournment. I find, in the absence of a witness whom I think should be examined, we cannot possibly close the inquest to-day.
The Coroner: To what time do you propose to adjourn?
The Inspector: Perhaps a few days, to give a little time to discover the witness. Any day towards the end of the week.
The Coroner: Say Friday?
The Inspector: That will do well. The inquiry was then adjourned until Friday at 10.50 a.m. -Evening Star, 24/8/1906.
TELEGRAPHIC NEWS
(Per Press Association.) DUNEDIN. September 23. The arrest of J. R. Hayne, a wellknown chemist, on a charge of the manslaughter of Margaret Kendrick, caused some sensation. Hayne was brought up before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M. Chief Detective Herbert said the illegal operation on the woman Kendrick was alleged to have been performed on the 12th inst. She was taken to the hospital, and died there at 3 o'clock on Saturday morning, her dying depositions having been taken by Mr Widdowson, S.M. The detective asked for a remand, as there had been no time to make any inquiries, and said he had been instructed to oppose the granting of bail. He might mention that accused had on him a loaded revolver when arrested. Mr Solomon, who appeared, for Hayne, quoted authorities to show that bail should be granted. The magistrate declined to take the responsibility of granting bail, and accused was remanded till next Saturday. -Oamaru Mail, 24/9/1906.
The witness for whose presence the inquest on the body of Margaret Kendrick was adjourned yesterday is the woman to whose house, it is alleged, deceased was driven on Wednesday, the 12th inst., remaining there till Tuesday of last week. The cabman who drove deceased will also be called as a witness. The charge against James R. Hayne of manslaughter will not likely be proceeded with on Saturday. A remand is almost certain to be asked for for a few more days. -Evening Star, 25/9/1906.
MARGARET KENDRICK’S DEATH.
The adjourned inquest on the body of Margaret Kendrick, single, aged thirty-five, who died at the hospital last Saturday morning under suspicious circumstances, was resumed at the Magistrate's Court at 10.30 this morning.
Inspector O’Brien called,
Julius McQuaid, cab-driver, who said he could not remember what day it was, but he received a telephone message about noon telling him to go to 342 George street at 3.45 that afternoon. He did not ask who was speaking. He went to the house at the hour stated. He waited till a little after four o’clock, when a young girl came out from the house, which he had learnt since was Mrs Beissel’s place. The girl said she would not require him until eight o’clock that evening. He went away, and returned at eight o’clock. A lady came to the back of the cab, and said that they would be ready in about half an hour. He waited for half an hour. He had been told through the telephone to go to William street, Mornington. Two ladies got into the cab. He was driving a four wheeler cab with two horses. It was a covered waggonette. He did not see a third lady when the two ladies came out of the cab. It would be about half-past eight when he left for William street, Mornington. He said he did not know where to go, and one of them directed him. He hardly saw the ladies, but he should judge by their voices one was a little bit ancient and the other middle-aged. The light inside the cab was out. He was asked to put it out by one of the ladies. He told them to put it out, which one of them did. This was done less than a minute after they had started on their journey. Witness drove straight up George and Princes streets up to Stafford street, and along the Eglinton road until he reached the spot where the tramway crossed. He was then told by one of the ladies that he had gone too far, and he wheeled back again. She said it was the second street from where he was; that would be the street — William street. He drove back and turned down what he was told was William street. He drove down a considerable distance when he was told to stop, which he did. One of the ladies alighted, and he saw her no more. He should take her to be the middle-aged one. She had no luggage that he saw. The passenger left in the cab said: “I’ll go back with you.” He drove to near the junction of Stafford and Princes streets, where the lady got off. It would be about opposite the Provincial Hotel. He next saw the same lady at 342 George street, the following day, when he called to get his fare. She asked him his charge when she got out of the cab, and he said 10s. She told him to call at 342 George street for the fare. She said: “Well, this person has only given me 5s to pay.” Witness replied that would not do. She said “I will have to pay.” and he said: “Very well, 8s will do.” He called the next evening, when she paid him the 8s. He had previously done work for the same lady and at the same house. He had not seen her; it would be a hard job for him to “pick” her. She was in her working attire at the time.
Inspector O’Brien: Call in the two ladies.
Two ladies then came into court, and witness said: “Yes, I remember the one dressed in black.”
Inspector O’Brien: That is Mrs Beissel.
The Coroner: Is that the lady who was in the cab that night?
Witness: I say that is the lady who was in the cab that night.
The ladies here retired, the Coroner remarking: “That is not what you call an ancient lady, surely?” —(Laughter).
The ladies here retired, the Coroner remarking: “That is not what you call an ancient lady, surely?” —(Laughter).
Inspector O’Brien: Have you ever driven any other ladies from that house?
Mr Solomon: Is that a proper question?
Inspector O’Brien: Why not?
Mr Solomon: We are here to inquire into the cause of deceased’s death.
Inspector O’Brien: I submit it is. If the answer is “Yes,” the next question I will ask will be: “Did you drive the deceased lady on any previous occasion?”
Mr Solomon: Why not ask the last question first?
The Coroner said that it was very evident the question might be of importance, and they had better get everything.
Inspector O’Brien: Mr Solomon has no right to interrupt me at all.
Mr Solomon: I am here by consent of the coroner. I am here to watch the interests of Mr Hayne.
Inspector O’Brien: You have no locus standi.
Mr Solomon: Since I have the permission of the coroner to be here, I have locus standi.
Inspector O’Brien (to witness): Did you drive any other ladies from this house on any previous occasion?
Witness: Yes, I have driven several. It is a boarding-house.
Did the driving take place in the night-time or day-time? — On one occasion I was asked through the telephone to drive to a social at Momington. That was at night.
Can you say whether you have ever previously driven from this house the two ladies you drove to William street, Momington? — I hardly think so. I cannot tell you. I might have done so, but I never took any notice. Continuing, witness said that he had been at the house about four times. He drove once to the social at Mornington, once to William street, Mornington, and twice to the railway station.
Inspector O’Brien: Were they females on every occasion?
Witness: Yes.
Inspector O’Brien: Where was the lady sitting who asked you to put the light out in the cab?
Witness: Behind me, on the right-hand side of the cab.
Eva Margaret Watson said that she lived with Mrs Beissel at 342 George street in the capacity of lady’s help. Mrs Beissel keeps a boarding-house. She had lived with Mrs Beissel for a little over five months. She helped with everything in the house, and attended to the bedrooms. Between the 12th and the 18th of this month a woman boarded there — one who had not been there before so far as witness knew. They called her Miss Carroll. She told Mrs Beissel that was her name, and Mrs Beissel spoke of her as Miss Carroll. She was small and slight, and had brown hair and rather pale complexion. Witness thought she was about twenty-eight or twenty-nine years old. Mrs Beissel did not, witness thought, keep books, but she kept a diary. It was on Wednesday that this lady came to the house. Witness thought it must be the 12th, but could not say. Witness could not say what hour she came, but she was there, at six o’clock, tea-time. The room allotted to her was on the first floor, on the right side coming in, facing Dundas street. She went to bed that night and got up and dressed next morning — the Thursday. Witness was out on Thursday night, but saw her on Friday morning. She got up a little after nine and dressed herself, and was up all day. She went to bed that night about nine or half-past — witness could not say exactly. She got up on Saturday morning, and was in the kitchen about ten o’clock. Could not say what time she retired on Saturday night. She remained in bed all day on Sunday, and also on Monday. On the Tuesday she rose and dressed. Witness saw her dressed at midday. She did not sleep there on Tuesday night. She went home. She had a little luggage. Witness did not see what it was. Only saw her sleeping clothes and two or three blouses. She left the house about eight o clock on the Tuesday evening. Mrs Beissel went with her. They went to Mornington in a cab. No person called to see her, to witness’s knowledge, while she lived at Mrs Beissel’s house. She appeared to be in an ordinary state of health till about the Saturday, when she complained of not being very well. She did not complain to witness, but to Mrs Beissel.
The Inspector: Don’t speak of anything you do not know yourself.
Witness continued: She took her food regularly. Witness did not see her take any medicine, and did not see any in the room. Witness did not think she wanted any attending to on the Saturday. Mrs Beissel attended to her on the Sunday, when she did not seem to be at all well, and also attended to her on the Monday. Mrs Beissel did not seem to be in her room at all till the Sunday.
Inspector O’Brien: Your memory seems to be better than it was four or five days ago. Do you not remember Detective Cameron asking you and you answering that you could not remember this woman being about the house?
Witness: I certainly did not tell about her, because I read something about it in the paper, and came to the conclusion that it was this young woman, and I thought there would be something about it. Mrs Beissel was away, and the whole of the responsibility seemed to be coming to me, and I didn’t know what to do.
Inspector O'Brien: Then you told the detective a lie?
Witness: Yes, that’s it — I told him a lie.
To the Foreman: Witness had met this woman some months before, and spoken to her, at a friend’s house, but witness did not remember this when she first saw her at Mrs Beissel’s, and it was only when she was leaving that she recalled the circumstance to witness’s memory, and she (witness) then remembered it. Witness could not say positively that this person had brown hair. It was dark hair, and she thought it was brown.
To the Inspector: Nobody except Mrs Beissel and witness attended to this room. That week there were four gentlemen boarders and two children. Of course they knew that this woman was in the house. Witness was sure that Mrs Beissel’s daughter (Florence Beissel) and the two children (Jean and Helen Watson) saw her often. She was about the house, and sat in the sitting room. Witness did not know that she went into the sitting room at any time when the gentlemen were there. Mrs Beissel's daughter was aged nineteen. The Watson children were aged fifteen and eleven respectively, and were witness’s sisters. They had been living at Mrs Beissel’s for two years — she had been looking after them.
Christina Stewart Beissel said she lived apart from her husband at 342 George street, where she kept a boarding-house. She remembered Wednesday, the 12th of this month, when a young lady came to her house at about a quarter to six that evening. Witness met her at the door. She was not accompanied by anyone that she knew of. Witness had no previous intimation that she was coming. Witness had a telephone on to her premises. She asked if she could stay for two or three weeks, and witness said “Yes.” She went inside. She had a small parcel with her. She did not say why she wanted to stay for two or three weeks, nor did she say who sent her. She asked how much witness charged, and she replied £1 a week. Witness added that she would like payment in advance, and she thereupon paid £1 for her first week’s board. Witness kept no books. She said her name was Miss Carroll. She was a small person, dark, and over thirty years of age. She was wearing a grey dress, with a white fur and light cap. She went to her room, but did not go to bed till later in the evening. She had tea, going to bed about ten o’clock. Witness saw her the next day. She went out that morning, witness thought, returning in time for tea. She went to bed about half-past nine. Witness saw her on Friday, but she did not remember whether she went out that day. She went to bed about the usual time (nine o’clock). Witness saw her in bed about nine o’clock on Saturday morning. She said she did not feel very well. She got up and dressed, but did not go out, remaining in her bedroom till early in the evening, when she went to bed. Witness saw her in her bed on the Sunday. She said she was much worse, and remained in bed all that day. Witness saw her on the Monday, when she was much better. She dressed, but did not go out. She remained on top of the bed, with a rug over her. She went to bed about five o'clock. Witness saw her about nine o’clock on Tuesday morning, when she was not so well again. She remained in bed all day, going home that evening. She asked witness to ring up for a cab to take her home. The cab arrived first about four o’clock, but the lady said she did not feel well enough to go. She want away about eight o’clock, witness going with her to William street, Mornington. She told witness that day where she lived. There was a lamp burning inside the cab. The lady asked the cabman to have the light put out. He said she could do so, and the lady then put the light out. Witness sat on the near side of the cab, on the side nearest to Pelichet Bay. The horses’ heads were then turned towards the Octagon. Witness paid the cabman 8s at her house the following day. The lady only gave her 5s, and witness paid the balance. That was all the money she received from her — £l and 5s. Witness asked her what the illness really was, and Miss Carroll replied first that she was subject to a weak stomach. Later on witness saw what had happened. That was on the Sunday. Witness again asked her about her illness. She was then in bed. Witness asked how this had come about, and she said she had been taking some medicine — strong drugs. This conversation took place before dinner on Sunday. Witness did not ask any further questions. Witness suggested that she should see a doctor, and she said she would — that when she went home she would get their family doctor — Dr Colquhoun. She seemed so well that witness did not think there was any immediate necessity for a doctor, and no doctor was sent for, nor was any medicine prescribed. Nobody called to see her whilst she was in witness’s house so far as witness knew. Witness saw no bottles on the mantelpiece in her room. Witness did not attempt to do anything to relieve her, in her weak state, except to give her biscuits, beaten-up eggs, cocoa, a cup of tea, and so on. She neither asked for nor received any medicine.
To the Foreman: Miss Carroll did not mention the name of any person, nor say by whose means this was brought about — witness meant the happening in the house that she (Mrs Beissel) discovered.
To the inspector: Miss Carroll slept alone in the room. Witness was at Tapanui last week, and on Monday, on returning to Dunedin, saw Detective Cameron. Probably told him less than she had told today. Did not remember what she told him. As a matter of fact, she was not inclined to tell him much. She was met by her son at Waipahi Junction. He did not say anything about the matter. He met her, she supposed, to accompany her home. She was not very communicative to the detective. She wanted to get legal advice before committing herself.
Julius McQuaid, recalled, said that he had found his book, and discovered by inquiry that it was on Tuesday, the 18th September, that he drove the two women to Mornington. It was the day he paid his rent. He was quite sure.
Detective Cameron’s evidence was as follows: — Mrs Beissel’s house was on the west side of George street, about a chain south of Dundas street. It stood back some distance on the section. It was a two-storeyed building. The front door was visible from the gate in George street. The house was painted rather a dark color. Chief-detective Herbert and himself arrested James Reynolds Hayne on Saturday in connection with the death of Margaret Kendrick. Hayne was a chemist carrying on business in Princes street. When he explained the nature of the charge to Hayne, all that Hayne said was “When did she die?” The chief detective told him it was about three o’clock, at Mornington. The chief detective had charged Hayne with the manslaughter of Margaret Kendrick, and it was then that Hayne asked when she died. Accused was searched, and on him were found papers, a six-chambered loaded revolver, a small rubber tube, a thermometer, three pairs of scissors and a pair of tweezers, money, a watch and chain, and some keys. Witness knew the shop, and had been through it. There were three rooms behind the shop, also a strong room off the shop. The strong room was about 9ft x 6ft; it had shelves in it — about four. Between the bottom and the second shelf on the left-hand side on entering there was a kind of folding bed on hinges. It was attached to the bottom shelf, and had two folding legs. It could be folded up and fastened to the second shelf. It fastened by a little spring lock at one end, and had a loop in the centre on a fastening which could be padlocked. When the string was fastened up the mattress, pillow, and rug were hidden and the bed or bunk disappeared from view. There was a chair in the room. The room was lighted by a gas jet from the ceiling. The door, witness thought, was a sliding one. He thought it could be fastened from both sides, but was not positive.
Mr Solomon: Ask him if he searched the premises and found anything to which he wants to draw attention.
Inspector O’Brien: Very well. Did you search the premises?
Witness: We made a search, and there was nothing found relevant to the present case.
Inspector O’Brien: Plenty of drugs there, of course?
Mr Solomon: Plenty of book debts, too.
At this stage (1.l0 p.m.) the inspector intimated that he had nothing more to present but the dying woman’s depositions. Would His Worship take them at once or adjourn for lunch?
Mr Graham (coroner) said that he would adjourn till after lunch. The Court would resume at 2.30.
Mr Solomon said that he had an important engagement for the afternoon, made when he expected the inquest to be over by lunch time, and he would be obliged if His Worship would not resume till 3 p.m.
His Worship consented, and the Court adjourned.
On resuming at 3 p.m., Detective Cameron said that to the strong room in Hayne’s shop there was a hanging door as well as a sliding door, and both could be fastened from inside. If locked, it would, witness thought, be possible to open the hanging door from the outside, and the sliding door could be opened from the outside. He produced a model showing the wall of the strong room on which were the shelves and the folding bed. When Chief-detective Herbert and witness entered the strong room with Mr Hayne, the latter said: “That is a bed or bunk that I use for trying on trusses.” That was all he said about it.
DECEASED’S DEPOSITIONS. The Inspector sent for the deputy-registrar of the Supreme Court, who produced the statement of Margaret Kendrick, of Mornington, spinster, taken before Mr Howell Young Widdowsson, S.M., at the Dunedin Hospital on the 21st day of September, 1906.
The following is an outline of the material parts of the statement:
I was in trouble for two months. I went to Hayne’s, the chemist, in Princes street, on Tuesday week last. He arranged for me to come again on Wednesday night, at a quarter-past five. That was the following day. I went on the Wednesday night, and saw Mr Hayne there alone. I had to wait a little while in a room at the back. He put me on a sort of table affair, and used an instrument. I had a bad turn. He got a young lady to take me away. I did not know the young lady. I had to give the money before he done the thing — £25. It was twenty notes and five sovereigns. I got the money from Mr Goudie on the same Wednesday. I met Mr Goudie in High street, about twenty minutes to five. Mr Hayne told me how much I would have to pay on the Tuesday, when I first called there. . . I was in a house in George street, not far from Dundas street. I heard Mr Hayne tell the young lady where we were to get out of the tram, Dundas street. It is a two-storey house. I fancy it is a dark color. It was night when I went in and night when I came away. The young lady took me to the gate, and then went away. A lady was standing at the door, and the door was open. The lady met me and took me inside. She told me to go to bed. I went to bed. The lady that met me at the door slept in the same room. I went into that house on the Wednesday and came out on the following Tuesday night. The same lady attended to me during that time. No one else. I wanted to leave of my own accord, and told the lady so. She did not want me to come away. After I got dressed I got into a cab. She went out to the cab with me. It was a four-wheeler. The lady sent for the cab by telephone. There is a telephone in the house. I heard it ringing up. I told him where to take me. He took me to William street, Mornington. From there I walked home. It was about half-past eight when I left this lady’s house. While I was there I saw no one else in the house. She is between forty and fifty years old; neither dark nor fair. I did not pay her any money. She did not ask for any. The lady paid the cabman. I did not. It was 4s... I did not tell this lady where I had been before I went to her house. Mr Hayne called when I was there — no friend of mine. He called about 11.50 in the forenoon on the Saturday. He did not say much. He just asked me how I was getting on. He was away again long before one o’clock. I got some white medicine once when I was at that house. The lady gave it to me. It was on the Saturday. It was after Mr Hayne called that the lady gave me the medicine. She did not tell me where she got it from. She had it on her mantelpiece. I did not see it at all till she gave it to me.
It was a single bed that I was in. It was in a room at the left-hand side of the passage as I went in. It was upstairs. There was a dressing table, a washstand, a wardrobe in the room. The wardrobe did not have a mirror in it. I think the room was papered. There was oilcloth and slips of carpet on the floor. There was one window in the room. The house is on the left-hand side as you go towards the Water of Leith. It is a good distance back from the street. After we got out of the tramcar at Dundas street we came back a little way in the direction of town. When I went into Mr Hayne’s shop on the Tuesday I told him I was wrong, and asked him if he could put me right... Mr Hayne is a man about fifty. Hayne’s shop that I went into is in Princes street, between Rattray street and Young, the jeweller’s, on the same side as Hislop, the jeweller’s. It is a big shop inside, and he sells chemicals. Mr Hayne is pleasant looking, light complexioned, and has a moustache only. There is a sort of screen in front of the door as you go into the shop. I make this statement believing that I am about to die. (Signed) M. Kendrick.
THE CORONER’S REMARKS. The Coroner, addressing the jury, said they had heard all the evidence it was proposed to call, and it was for them to say what in their opinion was the cause of death. As to that, he need only refer them to the evidence of Dr Roberts, who made the post mortem examination, corroborated as it was by the evidence of Dr Williams. With that to go on the jury could have no hesitation in saying what was the cause of death. They could only come to one conclusion —that death was due to peritonitis, the result of an illegal operation. The only thing the jury how had to consider was by whom the operation was performed. There was the dying depositions of the unfortunate young woman, to which a considerable amount of reliance must be placed, knowing that she was about to part from this earth to meet her Maker, it was not likely that she would make a false statement. At the same time it was not for him to say whether such evidence alone uncorroborated would be sufficient to procure the conviction of any person who might be accused of the offence. — It was for the jury to say whether, after hearing the evidence, it was sufficient for them to locate the blame on any particular person.
Inspector O’Brien: You may as well tell the jury that you can accept a verdict of four.
The Coroner: Yes, I can accept the verdict of four.
The jury retired at 3.30 p.m.
THE VERDICT. The jury returned at ten minutes to four, when the foreman said: We find that Margaret Kendrick died of peritonitis, caused by an illegal operation performed by James Reynolds Hayne. -Evening Star, 28/9/1906.
THE KENDRICK CASE.
MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY. [Per Press Association.] DUNEDIN, October 4. The Magisterial inquiry into the death of Margaret Kendrick was opened to-day. The principal new witness was Alexander Goudie, a single man. He said that he lived at Moeraki. He acknowledged intimacy with deceased, and offered to marry her, but she gave him no encouragement. When last in Dunedin he met her near the Arcade and gave her about £20, but could not be certain as to the amount. He paid her in notes and gold. This corroborated part of the deceased's dying depositions. -Star, 4/10/1906.
Here we meet the "young man" in the case, Alexander Goudie, who sheds some light on Margaret's emotional situation - but not much. Margaret was 35 years old, easily an "old maid" for the time. What had she found in Alexander in the way of an emotional tie? And what had she not found in him which made an "illegal operation" preferable to marrying him?
It is most likely that we will never know.
THE TRIAL OF J. R. HAYNE
As stated in yesterday’s issue James Reynolds Hayne was committed for trial for the manslaughter of Margaret Kendrick.
Detective Cameron, in the course of cross-examination, said that the examination of deceased at the hospital was not stopped in any way. The doctor said towards the finish that there was not much time, that the girl might go off at any moment. She was quite conscious and quite capable of understanding the questions that were put to her.
Chief-detective Herbert said that the oath was administered to deceased in the usual way by Mr Widdowson, who put the direct question to her: “Do you believe you are about to die?” She said: “Yes.” The questions were put to her just as they were in a court, and she answered the questions. In some cases her exact words in reply were put down, and in some cases the sense of her reply. It was read over to her afterwards, she said it was correct before she signed. She was in her full senses, and her mind was quite clear.
This concluded the case for the Crown, and after giving the usual caution His Worship committed accused for trial.
His Worship declined bail, declining to take the responsibility of granting it.
Mr Solomon, who appeared for accused, urged that the offence was not such as to exclude bail for the accused. It was no use going before a judge for bail, as an appeal against the magistrate’s judgment. A similar application had been made before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), who said that had the matter come before him in the first instance he would have granted bail, but he would not interfere with the jurisdiction of the magistrate. It was unfair, in face of that decision, to put the responsibility on a judge. If bail were not granted Hayne would be kept in gaol six weeks awaiting his trial. The chief-detective’s objection to bail had all along been that accused might tamper with the witnesses and prevent a fair chance being given the police to collect evidence against him. This objection no longer held good. He thought that any professional man would unhesitatingly describe the case as a weak one. In thousands of cases of manslaughter, where the evidence was very much stronger, bail was granted. To refuse it in this case, was, in his (Mr Solomon’s) opinion, almost to the verge of breaking down, savored of persecution. The magistrate pointed ont that when arrested Hayne had a loaded revolver in his possession. The charge was the most serious in the calendar next to murder. If liberated Hayne would have easy access to poisons, and, seeing that he had been in the habit of carrying a loaded revolver — for which he had, no doubt, some sufficient reason — he must refuse bail.
Mr Solomon: Accused has carried a revolver for twenty years. Many men carry a weapon for the purpose of self defence. There is no reason to suppose that he would commit suicide. -Evening Star, 6/10/1906.
The Supreme Court, Dunedin, was engaged on Friday last hearing the case in which James Reynolds Hayne, chemist, was charged with the manslaughter of Margaret Kendrick, the allegation being that he had performed an illegal operation. Messrs Solomon and Hanlon appeared for the accused, and objected to the admission of the dying depositions. Mr Justice Cooper decided to admit the statement and reserve the point for the Appeal Court if there was a conviction. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr Solomon, in his address to the jury, pointed out that the accused was charged with killing the woman, and the evidence showed that he did not kill her. Admitting that an instrument was used, Dr Roberts said that was not the cause of death, but the introduction of an irritant subject either liquid or solid. He challenged the statement that an instrument was used by Hayne, and commented on the fact of the prisoner not having been notified that the woman's depositions were to be taken, and on the fact of the magistrate and doctor, who were present, not being called. Mr Justice Cooper, in summing up, said it was unfortunate that the accused had not been notified that the depositions were to be taken. He could have attended personally or by counsel, and possibly some statement now appearing would have borne a different aspect. The jury, after a retirement of 10 minutes, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged. -Lake Wakatip Mail, 27/11/1906.
PASSING NOTES. (From Saturday's Daily Times.)
The "applause in court" to which the curtain was rung down on the Hayne case expressed, for one thing, a fellow-feeling with the accused. Possibly amongst the people clapping were some who, but for grace of the Devil, might have stood in the same box. Naturally it would please them to see and hear themselves vicariously absolved. I prefer, however, an interpretation that is different. The applause meant appreciation of a very exquisite judicial comedy, which comedy reached its climax and fit conclusion in the verdict "Not guilty." We are a play-going people; we know a good piece when we see it. And this piece — but for a certain tragic fact in the background — might have come from the workshop of Gilbert and Sullivan. There figured in it, for example, a yard of indiarubber tubing, which, along with a loaded pistol, had been found on accused when arrested. Was this tubing new or old? — did it show traces of use or did it not? To settle these deep questions experts testified, lawyers argued, and his Honor summed up:
Regarding the tubing found on accused, his Honor said that if it had been shown to be recently used, or if there had been any indication that some chemical had been forced through it, it would have formed an important factor in the case. But it was a piece of new tubing and, according to the medical evidence, had never been used. The jury could dismiss the tubing from their minds altogether.
All this on the theory that a chemist who in the process of an illegal operation had used a piece of indiarubber tubing would carry it about with him as a memento — what the French call a "piece justificative" — so that when the police came for him it might be found in his pocket, along with an incriminating pistol. These be the whimsies of opera bouffe. The "applause in court," no other than their righteous due, was "suppressed by the police," who perhaps supposed themselves being chivied. That is a pity. Bench and bar, rather, should have chimed in, as on the Gilbert and Sullivan boards they undoubtedly would.
"The accused bowed to the jury and left the dock." It seems to me that he should have directed his acknowledgments elsewhere. What the jury did the jury were virtually told to do, and they took only ten minutes in making up their minds to do it. The accused owed little to the jury. He owed something to the defence; and yet, when all is said, it was not the defence that got him off but the prosecution. For this reversal of parts there is, in the records of the courts, abundant precedent. By not letting well alone, by asking an unnecessary question, the defence has sometimes hanged a man; on the other hand the prosecution by its neglects has sometimes put itself out of court, or by maladroitness has argued the prisoner out of the dock. In the Hayne case his Honor enumerated the misadventures of the prosecution with painful detail. They had omitted this, forgotten that, neglected the other, — "it was unfortunate," again "it was unfortunate," and a third time "it was unfortunate." In short the prisoner was perfectly safe in the hands of his friends the enemy. Not long ago we had a scandalous case in nature not dissimilar — illegal operation, concealment, mystery, death; after which an inquest, and then — nothing. Surely an egregious non sequitur. The police could not so much as find out how the affair had been financed, where the money came from, who had feed the doctor and the nurse, finding which they had found everything. Out of one or other of the parties to the case this information might have been squeezed, but nobody took the trouble to squeeze them. That affair and the Hayne affair taken together put the Dunedin police in a peculiarly unpleasant position. -Otago Witness, 5/12/1906.
 |
| Southern Cemetery, Dunedin. DCC photo. |
Thus ends the story of the unfortunate Margaret Kendrick.
The career of James Reynolds Hayne, chemist, begins in Palmerston, where his father was a doctor. He became a chemist in his home town, becoming in 1875 the sole Palmerston agent for Chollah's Great Indian Cures, which promised "No more sickness! if you take the new medicines!"
In 1882 Hayne took over the Oamaru practice of chemist H. H. Coggins and he was declared bankrupt in 1885.
The career of James Reynolds Hayne, chemist, begins in Palmerston, where his father was a doctor. He became a chemist in his home town, becoming in 1875 the sole Palmerston agent for Chollah's Great Indian Cures, which promised "No more sickness! if you take the new medicines!"
In 1882 Hayne took over the Oamaru practice of chemist H. H. Coggins and he was declared bankrupt in 1885.
Business Notices.
PUBLIC NOTICE
WE HAVE THIS DAY DISPOSED of the Stock-in-Trade, Fixtures, Fittings, and Book Debts of the Business lately carried on by Mr H. H. Coggins, Chemist, of Oamaru, to MR JAMES R. HAYNE and we will thank all persons owing money to Mr Coggins to pay same to Mr Hayne, whose receipt will be a full discharge.
KEMPTHORNE, PROSSER, & CO.'S New Zealand Drug Company (Limited)
THOMAS W. KEMPTHORNE, Managing Director. Dunedin, 19th June, 1882.
KEMPTHORNE, PROSSER, & CO.'S New Zealand Drug Company (Limited)
THOMAS W. KEMPTHORNE, Managing Director. Dunedin, 19th June, 1882.
IN reference to the above advertisement, and as a successor to Mr Coggins, I have much pleasure in informing the residents of Oamaru and adjoining districts that I shall keep in stock only the PUREST DRUGS AND CHEMICALS together with all the recent Pharmaceutical Preparations, Modern Surgical Appliances, Patent Medicines of leading proprietors, and Perfumery from the most celebrated makers.
My Stock will also comprise all articles pertaining to the Drug Trade which it is necessary to have, and to be found only in a First-class Drug Establishment.
I have had considerable experience in the business, being for eight years with Mr Wilkinson, the leading chemist of Dunedin, and three years in business on my own account. I am, therefore, hopeful that, by close attention and civility, I may secure a large share of patronage from both the general public and the medical profession, and merit the approbation of all.
In answer to many enquiries, I beg to inform the numerous friends of the late Dr W. R. Hayne that his celebrated ANTI-BILIOUS APERIENT PILLS, and his well known Mixture for Indigestion, can be obtained from his son, J. R. HAYNE, CHEMIST, Itchen street (next Star and Garter Hotel), OAMARU.
My Stock will also comprise all articles pertaining to the Drug Trade which it is necessary to have, and to be found only in a First-class Drug Establishment.
I have had considerable experience in the business, being for eight years with Mr Wilkinson, the leading chemist of Dunedin, and three years in business on my own account. I am, therefore, hopeful that, by close attention and civility, I may secure a large share of patronage from both the general public and the medical profession, and merit the approbation of all.
In answer to many enquiries, I beg to inform the numerous friends of the late Dr W. R. Hayne that his celebrated ANTI-BILIOUS APERIENT PILLS, and his well known Mixture for Indigestion, can be obtained from his son, J. R. HAYNE, CHEMIST, Itchen street (next Star and Garter Hotel), OAMARU.
COMPOUND PITCH PILLS, a sure preventative and cure for Piles. Persons troubled with the above distressing complaint have only to take the pills for a day or two, when they are threatened with an attack, to ensure a certain cure. Prepared only by J. R. HAYNE, next Star and Garter Hotel.
Dr Mantell's celebrated COUGH SYRUP for severe Coughs, Colds, Influenza, etc. This Syrup has been extensively used for many years by persons suffering from the Above troublesome complaints, and is especially recommended for the use of children and persons of delicate constitutions. Prepared by J. R. HAYNE, next Star and Garter Hotel.
Syrup of QUININE AND IRON, an agreeable tonic for children and delicate persons. The properties of Quinine are well known for strengthening the stomach and producing appetite, whilst the Iron gives tone and color to the blood, thereby giving vigor and strength to the constitution. Prepared by J. R. HAYNE, next Star and Garter Hotel.
COMPOUND APERIENT POWDER, a mild and very agreeable laxative, suitable for ladies and children who cannot take castor oil or other nauseous medicines.
WYETH'S compressed tablets of Chlorate of Potash, Chlorate of Potash and Borax, Bicarbonate of Soda, and Bicarbonate of potash, &c., &c, sold by J. R. HAYNE, next Star and Garter Hotel.
All Slesinger's Medicines kept in stock, Rheumatic Balsam, Cough Syrup, Embrocation, Blister Ointment for Horses, Hoof Oils, Grease Ointment, Condition and Worm powders, Colic Drench, Mange Ointment for horses and Dogs.
PEPPER'S Sulpholine Lotion, Quinine and Iron Wine, Podophyllin and Taraxaeum, sold by J. R. HAYNE, next Star and Garter Hotel.
The following kept in stock, all sold at Dunedin prices: Fellow's Compound Syrup of Hypophosphates, Maltine and Cod Liver Oil. Maltine, Kepler's extract of Malt and Cod Liver Oil, Churchill's Syrups of Lime, Sods, &c, Hazeline, Moller's, De Jongh's, A I Allen Hanbury's Cod Liver Oil any quantity in bulk, Dr Scott's Emulsion of Cod Liver Oil, Tamar Indian Lozenges, Lime Juice, Joy's Cigarettes for Asthma, Grimault's Cigars for Asthma, Zoedone, &c, &c, &c. All orders by post addressed to J. R. HAYNE (late H. H. Coggins), next Star and Garter Hotel, promptly attended to.
Agent for Cooper's celebrated Sheep Dip, which is far superior to any other in use. Sold in any quantity from one packet, liberal discount on large orders. -North Otago Times, 1/11/1882.
LATEST TELEGRAPHIC
LATEST TELEGRAPHIC
A fire occurred to-day, by which the goods in the shops of J. T. Smith, saddler, and J. R. Hayne, chemist, were damaged and destroyed. How the fire originated is not known. Mr Smith is insured for £900 in the New Zealand Office, and Mr Hayne in the National Office, but the amount is not known. -NZ Mail, 9/1/1885.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
In the District Court of Timaru and Oamaru, (being a local Court of Bankruptcy), holden at Oamaru.
In the matter of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883."
NOTICE is hereby given that I, JAMES REYNOLDS HAYNE, of Oamaru, in the Provincial District of Otago, Chemist, have this day filed in the said Court at Oamaru aforesaid a petition to be adjudicated a Bankrupt.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 1885.
JAMES R. HAYNE.
Witness: William Kerr, Solicitor, Oamaru. -North Otago Times, 3/10/1885.
In June of 1888, Hayne is in Dunedin, having his bankruptcy closed by the court. He seems to have gone into partnership.
NOW OPEN.
THE OTAGO DRUG STORE AND DISPENSING COMPANY (Ltd.)
(Opposite Bank of New Zealand, Dunedin).
Managers: PETIT AND HAYNE.
All Orders addressed OTAGO DRUG STORE, 101 Princes street, Dunedin, Will receive prompt attention. -Evening Star, 25/9/1888.
The lease at 101 Princes St ended in October, 1904, and Hayne moved south on the street. In 1906 he is in court for the manslaughter of Margaret Kendrick.
After acquittal in the Margaret Kendrick case, Hayne's shop and stock becomes an "assigned estate" to his suppliers, Kempthorne and Prosser Co. He has signed over the business, either as a going concern or for sale of stock and lease. Meanwhile, comment on the case of Margaret Kendrick has not ended.
DULL DUNEDIN DETECTIVES.
Abortionists Operate Undiscovered.
Patrick Herbert is Dunedin's Chief Detective. He's a genial sort of a cuss, but he's a bad habit of kidding himself that he's a remarkable smart man. Paddy holding forth in his cups to a ring of adoring onlookers is a source of unrestricted gladness. He has certainly caught a thief or two, and laid more than one wretched moll by the heels. But any mug can do that, with decent luck. A detective is made for purposes of prevention, more than for running about catching evil-doers, and robbing the ordinary policeman of half his glory, and Paddy Herbert and his myrmidons don't do much in the prevention line. "Truth" will give an instance, and show that Pat has a big part of him mug. It is only about twelve months ago since James Hayne, a Dunedin chemist, got mixed up in the hottest kind of water because he was alleged to have been fooling about a young single woman, with illegal instruments. The job did not prove too successful, for the young woman died, after making certain statements, and the brief acquaintanceship that eventuated between James and the amiable Paddy was of an extremely intimate and personal nature. But an intelligent jury, on the hoary old principle of the moke that scooted and the stable door, acquitted James, and he went back to the little shop to again exhibit the white flower of blameless life. Somewhere about the same time a young woman passed out in the house of an ultra-respectable dame in George-street, and the scandal-mongers nodded their toothless heads and whispered; but nothing came of this; the lady was top respectable, evidently. These strange deaths constantly occur, and not one of the intelligent lazy policemen think it worth his while to ask "whaffor?" Some unfortunate is at once prosecuted when a young woman dies under circumstances that warrant an assumption that she didn't want motherhood, but one never hears of a case being brought without this wretched accompaniment of' suspicious illness or death. If one did, one might begin to think that a detective force is worth its salt, instead of its being
A CROWD OF OVER-DRESSED DUDES, loafing about the Courts during the day and smoking in front of the theatres at nights. In one wellknown street in Dunedin there's a very respectable house. From the trim Venetian blinds to the neat picket fence, its outlines suggest that it is nothing if not owned by one of the "unco guid." It's got Prohibitionist and lay-reader-on-Sundays and mix-salt-with-sugar-other-days kind of respectability writ large all over it, and the good people who are daily in its vicinity never look at it askance. Yet there are more than seventeen people in Dunedin know things about that house. It is occupied by a professional abortionist, and, at the moment writing, there are five women sheltered there undergoing treatment of a special and illegal kind. Four are young single women belonging to the town of somewhere in the country not too far away. The other is a married woman, and she comes from Christchurch. This establishment has been carried on for some time now, and the nature of it is far from being entirely unknown. Paddy Herbert and his four or five assistants have about the easiest kind of job simply to hang about and look out for anything of this nature. The fact that they seldom have a case of any kind seems to explain why it is that they wear patent leather boots, and look happy and fat, and why the little curative institution has been allowed to remain so long unmolested. This paper holds no brief to decry abortionists. Like the demi-monde, abortionists will exist contemporaneous with civilisation and trousers, and New Zealand will have a fair proportion. But just now they are exceedingly unlawful, and whether they justify their practice or not, the fact remains that one or more, carrying on a noisy and lucrative business in Dunedin, have not been in any way disturbed by over-zealous 'tecs. Scores of women come to Dunedin every year, and undergo illegal operations, and go gladly home again, while Chief Detective Paddy Herbert sits calmly in his office and smokes a peaceful and contented pipe. Why ? -NZ Truth, 21/3/1908.
Margaret Kendrick was by no means the last fatality under suspicious circumstances with which the name of Hayne was associated.
DEATH UNDER QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
(Per Press Association.) Dunedin, October 17.
The inquiry into the death of Margaret Mary Donnelly, which took place on October 3rd, was resumed this morning.
Dr Fleming and Dr McPherson were recalled.
The former attributed the death to septicaemia.
Cross-examined, he stated that there was more chance of septicaemia after unnatural interference, but if septic precautions were taken there would be no big element of risk.
The case assumed an interesting aspect when Dr Macpherson, in reply to Senior-Sergeant Dart, admitted that Hayne, a well-known local chemist had seen him in regard to the girl's condition. He said Hayne had come to him and wanted to take him into his confidence about the matter, and asked witness to go and see her. Witness declined, but if he had been called in by the people of the house where the girl was staying he would have gone. Subsequently, when summoned by Dr Fleming to go to Hope street to attend this patient later, he saw Hayne, who asked how the patient was. He told him she was manifestly dying, and Hayne asked if there would be an inquest. Witness said that it would rest with the Coroner and Dr Fleming. Hayne later rang up to say that Dr Fleming attributed death to acute liver trouble. Asked why he did not make the statement when first called, witness said he was aware that evidence had not concluded, and consulted a leading medical man and solicitor about his position. They advised him to tell all he knew about the matter. The reason for withholding the information was that he was not then sure of his position.
James Reynold Hayne, called, refused to answer questions, as did Ephraim Barbour McKay and Miss Inglis, on the ground that their statements might incriminate them.
The Coroner returned a verdict that the cause of death was acute septicemia, the result of a mishap, but how the latter was brought about, whether naturally or by artificial means (owing to the refusal to give evidence by the only witnesses who could throw any light on the subject on the ground that such evidence, may possibly tend to incriminate themselves) there is not sufficient evidence to show. -Oamaru Mail, 18/10/1913.
DUNEDIN SEPTICAEMIA MYSTERY.
REMARKABLE DEVELOPMENTS AT THE INQUEST.
WITNESSES DECLINE TO ANSWER.
Dr. Macpherson's Disclosures — He took Legal Advice — Invercargill Auctioneer's Strange Attitude — Declined to Answer Questions which might Incriminate — No Information — from Chemist "Jimmy" Hayne — The Significant Silence of Miss Inglis — Is there a Mrs. Ritchie or Not? — The Coroner's Conclusions.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
On Friday last the inquest on the body of Margaret Mary Donnelly was resumed in the Magistrate's Court, Dunedin. Coroner Graham, conducted the inquiry, and the police were represented by Senior-Sergeant Dart. Lawyer Callan watched proceedings on behalf of the Donnelly family, Lawyer Hanlon saw to Miss Inglis's interests, and Auctioneer Ephraim Harbour McKay, of Invercargill, was represented by Lawyer Hay.
Deceased lady belonged to Invercargill, and had been employed as a book-keeper by McKay. She came to Dunedin towards the end of last month, and died under painfully distressing and singularly mysterious circumstances, in a house kept by Miss Elizabeth Simpson Inglis at 49 Hope-street. At the original inquest at the morgue, Dr. Fleming gave it as his opinion that death was probably due to profound toxaemia, and the inquiry was adjourned.
On Friday, 10th inst., the inquest was resumed to consider Miss Inglis's very important evidence, but that lady declined to answer several necessary questions, and finally assumed a comatose condition, with evident symptoms of probable collapse. As a consequence, the inquest was further adjourned until the 17th inst.
On this occasion, additional evidence was taken, and the reports furnished by the experts — Mr. Bickerton, Government analyst, Christchurch, and Drs. Roberts and Champteloup — were to hand.
In answer to Senior-Sergeant Dart, Dr. Fleming, recalled, said he had seen the various reports mentioned. At the time he visited deceased, she was evidently suffering from acute toxaemia. From what he saw of deceased, and having considered the experts' reports since, he would now attribute
DEATH TO SEPTICAEMIA. Septicaemia often occurred after a mishap, but it should not happen after an ordinary miscarriage or confinement. The use of an instrument would increase the chances of septicaemia when not carried out under thoroughly aseptic conditions. There was always a big element of risk after an instrument had been used, unless proper aseptic precautions were taken. He had no conversation with any interested party either before or after the girl's death.
Senior-Sergeant: Did anyone speak to you about a death certificate? — No.
Had you any conversation with any chemist regarding the cause of death, inquest, or certificate of death? — None whatever.
Did any person call to see you in connection with the death? — Yes, on the 4th Inst., Mr. MacKay of Invercargill came to my house and said he had noticed in the papers that Miss Donnelly had suddenly died, and he was anxious to know where the body was. I directed him to 49 Hope-street.
Did you see any douche affair in the room in which Miss Donnelly died? — I saw an ordinary douche-can commonly used for cleansing purposes.
Could such an article be used to arrest septicaemia? — It might by administering an aseptic douche.
Can you say if it were used in Miss Donnelly's case? — I cannot.
To Lawyer Callan: Miss Donnelly's was one of the most acute attacks he had ever known. He understood she was quite well on Tuesday and Wednesday — all happened within 30 hours. The girl was in a dying condition when he saw her. The symptoms had made their appearance on Thursday morning, witness was called on Friday. He could not do anything, even if he had been called in on Thursday, the thing was too acute.
Lawyer Callan: Could not some fresh incident take place between Thursday morning and Friday? — What do you mean?
Now, Dr. Fleming, please confine yourself to answering. — I can't see what could probably take place.
And that is all you can tell me about this remarkable case? — What more is there? The case was unusual in running a very rapid course.
Dr. Macpherson, recalled, said he saw deceased on the morning on which she died — about 7 a. m. He agreed with the previous witness as to the probable cause of death. Septicaemia might occur from an open wound — a fresh wound. A miscarriage would make it more probable, and, if artificially produced, it would become more risky.
Senior-Sergeant: Had you a conversation with any person either before or after the girl's death? — Yes.
Who was the person? — Mr. Hayne, the chemist.
I HAD A CONVERSATION with him before the girl died.
When did he see you? — He called at my house about 8 a.m. on the morning the girl died. I was in bed at the time, and I found Mr. Hayne in my surgery when I went down.
What did he say? — He said he wanted to take me into his confidence, and asked if I could go and see a patient who was dangerously ill in Hope-street — near by. He said the patient had had a miscarriage on Wednesday night, and was very yellow, and he considered her to be very ill, but did not think there was anything septic.
What did you say? — I declined to go, or to be mixed up with any case in which he was in any way connected; but I said, after a while, that if I were called in by the people of the house or by another medical man I might go.
What did Mr. Hayne say then? — He went over the names of several medical men, some of whom he would like to go for and others he did not care to approach. I said I could not advise him. He then went away, and I returned to bed.
What happened next? — About 7 a.m. I got a ring from Dr. Fleming asking me to go to 49 Hope-street, and I went. I had a strong suspicion it was the same case.
Witness then related that he had consultation with Dr. Fleming. They were not long in the house, leaving at 7.40. Again Mr. Hayne turned up. Witness saw him for the second time as he (witness) turned out his dogs into Hope-lane to have a run. (This was at the rear of witness's house.) "Hayne approached me." said the witness, "while I was standing at my back gate. He apparently came from the direction of Hope-street. He may have come down Hope-street, or across Hope-street, but he did not come up Hope-street, as I would have seen him previously. No. 49 Hope-street is nearly opposite Hope-lane, but a little higher up. The lane is a cul-de-sac. Mr. Hayne came over and spoke to me, saying, "You've seen that case with Dr. Fleming?" I replied I had. He said, "What do you think of the patient?" I said,
SHE WAS MANIFESTLY DYING — that nothing could be done for her. "Do you think there will be an inquest?" he then asked. I told him that rested with the Coroner and Dr. Fleming. On going away, he said a friend, or her friend would see Dr. Fleming.
Senior-Sergeant: Did you see Mr. Hayne again that day? — No, but I may mention that about 11 a.m. that day Mr. Hayne rang me up on the telephone, and said the patient was dead, and that Dr. Fleming had said she died of an acute form of liver disease, but that there was to be an inquest, as it would be the best thing under the circumstances.
Senior-Sergeant: Now, Dr. Macpherson, can you tell me why you did not tell us that in the first instance?
"Well," replied the Doctor, with evident uneasiness; "the whole matter is a most painful one to me, and I had not quite made up my mind what my position really was then. I know I would have another opportunity of giving evidence, and, in the meantime, I obtained the advice of several leading men in the medical profession. I also took legal advice; the legal advice decided me, as I was informed by a lawyer of standing that to withhold the information would be practically committing perjury. I did not give this evidence before because I was doubtful of my real position, and I practically confined myself to the questions put to me then. The information came to me in my medical capacity, but I was legally advised that under no possibility could I escape giving it without violating my oath.
The next witness was Auctioneer Ephraim Harbour McKay, of Invercargill, in whose employment the deceased young woman had been as book-keeper. Witness was visibly agitated, and evidently felt his position keenly. His sighs of deep emotion audibly reached the press table from time to time, and his repeated refusals, delivered in tremulous tones, to answer any of the SeniorSergeant's necessary questions, created a very painful impression in court, and unfortunately assisted the grave gossip current among all classes about town.
Senior-Sergeont: How long had deceased been in your employ, Mr. McKay? — For eight years as bookkeeper and typiste. Her position was a responsible one.
You had promoted her to be head book-keeper? — Yes, about the time she left for Dunedin, and I informed her that her salary would be raised if she returned.
Had she an office to herself? Ordinarily she had one entirely to herself.
How many offices have you? — Three. My brother is a member of the firm, and we have separate offices.
Were you in Dunedin prior to Miss Donnelly's death?
Auctioneer McKay showed evident signs of much agitation at this question, and, in solemn tones, appealed to the Coroner: "Your Worship," he said, "it seems to be most unfortunate that I am to be unfairly dragged into this case. I think it would be better at the start for me to say that
I DECLINE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION WHATEVER."
Senior-Sergeant: Were you in Dunedin the Monday before Miss Donnelly died? — I decline to answer.
Did you find Miss Donnelly in her office on your return from Dunedin? — I saw Miss Donnelly that night (Monday) in the presence of my wife. They were both working — Miss Donnelly and another clerk.
Did Miss Donnelly come down to work on Tuesday? Mr. McKay became agitated once more and appealed strongly to the Coroner: "Your Worship, I claim privilege and your protection. I decline to answer any more questions."
On the ground that they may incriminate you? Witness: I'll answer no more questions.
Coroner: But you must, or I will commit you for contempt of court. Might your answers incriminate you?
Witness: Yes.
Senior-Sergeant: Did you tell Detective Carroll that you were in Dunedin on the Monday? — I decline to answer.
Lawyer Hay: I appear in the interests of this witness. The matter is one now in which the police seem to have some suspicion, and unfortunately Mr. McKay has been innocently involved. The facts in the case may be ambiguous, and my client has been advised that the proper course for him was not to answer, on the ground that his answers might unfairly incriminate him.
Senior-Sergeant: If he alleges they will unfairly incriminate him it is tantamount to saying he's innocent.
Lawyer Hay: Yes, he is innocent.
Coroner: If he has nothing to conceal there can be no harm in telling the whole of the truth. If he declines to answer it will leave the presumption that he has something to conceal.
Senior-Sergeant: Did Miss Donnelly come back to your office on Tuesday morning?
Witness: Mr. Coroner, I decline to answer, and I claim your special protection in this particularly sad case.
Coroner (with a sigh): I can't see the good of going on with this witness.
Lawyer Hay: The reason why witness has taken up this attitude is owing to the recent developments in the case. Only this morning we had developments.
Coroner: If his conscience were clean he would withhold nothing: the public will draw their own conclusion from his refusal. His present course of action leaves him to be
UNFAIRLY JUDGED BY THE PUBLIC.
Lawyer Kay: Mr. McKay's character is well known and will protect him in this respect. He is a resident of over 10 years, and nothing can be said against him. He is sorry now he ever took any part in it at all subsequent to the lady's death.
A suppressed buzz of voices passed through the court as the name of Mr. James Hayne was called, and the florid well-known "Jimmy" — matured, double-chinned and paunchy — ambled into the box. One could hear the proverbial pin drop, as "Jimmy" ogled the Coroner, and surreptitiously studied the court as he wiped his rolled gold pince nez. As the senior-sergeant glanced at his file of papers, "Jimmy" clapped his stumpy right index-digit and fat thumb to his cheek and chin after the studied fashion of Hall Caine — and obliquely surveyed his examiner.
Senior-Sergeant: What's your full name, Mr. Hayne? — James Reynolds Hayne.
Your address and occupation? — I carry on business as a chemist in Princes-street, and I reside at 305 High-street.
Sergeant Dart here suggested reading the evidence given by Dr. Macpherson, which Coroner Graham accordingly did.
Witness: I must refuse to answer any questions after hearing that.
Coroner: You cannot say that. I will commit you for contempt of court if you don't answer. What are your reasons?
Witness: Dr. Macpherson's evidence is sufficient reason.
Coroner: Do you consider that your answers may tend to incriminate you? — I do.
Senior-Sergeant: Did you see Dr. Macpherson after 11 a.m.? — I decline to answer any more.
Are you a frequent visitor at No. 49 Hope-street? — I decline to answer.
Do you know or have you ever seen a girl called Margaret Mary Donnelly — the subject of this inquest? — I decline to give any answer.
DID MR EPHRAIM HARBOUR McKAY CALL ON YOU, Monday, September 29? — I decline to answer on the grounds...
Coroner (annoyed): But why? Witness: My answer might incriminate me.
Senior-Sergeant: Do you know if a woman called Mrs. Ritchie recently lived at No. 49 Hope-street — up to three months ago? — I decline to answer.
Coroner: It is no use going on, sergeant, the witness has made up his mind not to answer.
Senior-Sergeant: Yes, sir, he declines to give any evidence that may throw light upon this poor lady's death.
Owing to the collapsible state which Miss Inglis got into on the occasion she first tendered her evidence, she did not enter the witness box last Friday, but was accommodated with a chair convenient to the press table, and her sharp features still bore a high coloring, but she evidently was in a more satisfied frame of mind than on the previous occasion.
Senior-Sergeant: Did you treat deceased in any way after the miscarriage? — I did not.
To whom did the douche can in the room belong to? — It belonged to Mrs. Ritchie. I did not see it used by anyone.
Was Mr. Hayne, the chemist, at No. 49 Hope-street that morning, or there at any time at all? — I decline to answer.
Coroner: Why? Miss Inglis (softly): It might incriminate me.
Senior-Sergeant: Was there really a woman named Mrs. Ritchie up till three months ago — not yourself — as the occupier of No, 49 Hope-street? — I decline to answer.
Where is Mrs. Ritchie now: no doubt she has heard all about this case — It has received wide publicity? — I decline to say.
Have you not invented Mrs. Ritchie? — I decline to answer.
IS THERE A MRS. RITCHIE OR NOT? — No answer.
On the morning that Miss Donnelly died did you try to send a message to Mr. McKay? — No, I did not. I tried to get him on the telephone, but couldn't.
Which Mr. McKay did you endeavor to see? — Mr. E B. McKay.
How did you secure his name? — I only got it from the girl. No one instructed me to address Mr. McKay.
When did deceeased furnish you with his name? — It was when the girl was getting unconscious that I tried to find out her address. She mentioned McKay and "uncle" when she was getting bad, and I concluded McKay was her uncle.
Did Mr. Hayne send you for Dr. Fleming? — I decline to answer on the ground that I might incriminate myself.
Coroner: You decline to answer because Mr. Hanlon shook his head. A burst of laughter from the body of the court greeted the coroner's remark, and the callous witness laughed and swayed merrily herself. On this occasion she needed no glass of water.
Senior-Sergeant: Do you know Mr. Hayne, the chemist? — Yes, I met him in his shop.
Does he visit 49 Hope-street? — I decline to answer.
You said previously you have received £10 from Mrs. Ritchie, beginning of October; now, Miss Inglis, did you not get that £10 from Mr. Hayne? — I decline to answer.
Is not Mr. Hayne "Mrs. Ritchie"? — I decline to answer.
Lawyer Callan: You said that Miss Donnelly mentioned "McKay"? — Yes, and she said "auctioneer."
Whom did you try to ring up? — I tried to ring up "McKay, Invercargill."
Did Miss Donnelly mention Invercargill? — She did.
This concluded the evidence.
THE CORONER'S CONCLUSIONS.
Coroner Graham: This is one of those painful cases which occasionally crop up, and which are shrouded with a certain amount of mystery, as the witnesses are all more or less interested in stifling the truth. The young woman had unfortunately become pregnant, and shortly afterwards a miscarriage occurred. There was a suspicious circumstance in her leaving Invercargill for Dunedin. She was on the eve of promotion in her employment, and was going to visit friends, but she came to Dunedin and stayed in an obscure lodging-house in Hope-street, which had never been advertised, and which had no notice up to indicate it to be a lodginghouse. How did she come to know of the place? She was to have left on Thursday, but she suddenly decided to leave on Tuesday. She started off early that morning. She went to the place mentioned, where the miscarriage took place and she died. I can only come to the conclusion, which is, that the cause of death was acute septicaemia, the result of a miscarriage, but how the latter was brought about, whether naturally or by artificial means (owing to the refusal to give evidence by the only witnesses who could throw light on the subject, on the ground that such evidence might tend to incriminate them) there is not sufficient evidence to show. -NZ Truth, 25/10/1913.
Coroner Graham: This is one of those painful cases which occasionally crop up, and which are shrouded with a certain amount of mystery, as the witnesses are all more or less interested in stifling the truth. The young woman had unfortunately become pregnant, and shortly afterwards a miscarriage occurred. There was a suspicious circumstance in her leaving Invercargill for Dunedin. She was on the eve of promotion in her employment, and was going to visit friends, but she came to Dunedin and stayed in an obscure lodging-house in Hope-street, which had never been advertised, and which had no notice up to indicate it to be a lodginghouse. How did she come to know of the place? She was to have left on Thursday, but she suddenly decided to leave on Tuesday. She started off early that morning. She went to the place mentioned, where the miscarriage took place and she died. I can only come to the conclusion, which is, that the cause of death was acute septicaemia, the result of a miscarriage, but how the latter was brought about, whether naturally or by artificial means (owing to the refusal to give evidence by the only witnesses who could throw light on the subject, on the ground that such evidence might tend to incriminate them) there is not sufficient evidence to show. -NZ Truth, 25/10/1913.
| CHEMIST "JIMMY" HAYNE - NZ Truth, 25/10/1913. |
Not long after the "Donnelly" case, Hayne moved his place of business to 422 Moray Place "next to the swimming baths," and opposite Dunedin's First Church.
It was from this address that Hayne was charged again, in what became known as "The Silent Witness case."
CHEMIST CHARGED
Hayne, of Dunedin, Arrested
(From "Truths Dunedin Rep.)
The charges of malpractice against James Reynold Hayne, a Dunedin chemist, Elizabeth Simpson Inglis, his assistant and a young man from Waimate, Norman Naylor, which were commenced at Waimate on October 6 were continued at Dunedin Police Court on Tuesday last. The only evidence taken at Waimate was that of the young woman, Gladys Batchelor, and her sworn testimony was obtained in the Waimate Hospital, a nurse sitting by her bedside during the time she was under examination. She said she resided with her parents at Waimate, and knew the accused Norman Naylor. She kept company with him, and he was the cause of her trouble. When she told him the state she was in he said the best thing for her to do was
TO SEE MR. HAYNE, OF DUNEDIN, and to get it fixed up through him. He wrote a letter to Mr. Hayne, and she saw the contents of it. She left for Dunedin on September 12, and called on arrival at Mr. Hayne's chemist shop, and Hayne said to her, "Are you the girl the silly fellow wrote about?" She replied, "Yes." He then asked the witness if she had any money, and when she answered, "No." he said she was no good to him without money. After she had been to the back of the shop with Hayne she went with the accused Inglis to the Post Office to see if any money had come. There being no letter they returned to the shop and waited till nine o'clock that night, and then paid a second visit, which was also unsuccessful. Accused Inglis then suggested the witness should find a place to stay, and after failing to get accommodation at two public houses she secured a room at a private hotel from Friday till Monday. In the meantime she telegraphed to Naylor to send the money to Box 229, Dunedin, and on the Tuesday she received £30, made up of one twenty-pound note, and one ten-pound note. This she gave to Hayne, but he returned £5, giving her four one-pound notes, one ten-shilling note, and the rest silver. (at time of writing, L25 is worth about $3000) He then ordered a hot bath, and after she had it she was put to bed. Witness described what she alleged took place, saying that whilst it was being carried out accused Hayne had a towel over her face. During the time he had the assistance of the accused Inglis. On the second night she was given medicine to make her sleep, and the next morning she went home, but before going, bade good-bye to Hayne, asserting that for the purpose she had to go into a room where he was in bed. There were two big Persian cats there. The room where she slept had three beds, and the bath was in the centre of another room. She remembered there were
A LOT OF DOGS KEPT at the back — about 50. Witness also said that Naylor had told her that if she did not go to Dunedin to see Hayne he would clear out. Under cross-examination by Mr. Hanlon (who was appearing for Hayne and Simpson) the witness deposed that she made a statement to her married cousin, Mrs. Batchelor, and when in the hospital made another to Drs. Pitt and Scoullar. She said she was told she ought to make a statement to clear her mother. No one suggested that her mother had anything to do with it, nor did she know what put it into the doctors' heads to say it would clear her mother. She made the statement because she was told she might not get better. On Tuesday last, the accused appeared before the S.M. at the Dunedin Magistrate's Court, and on the application of the Chief Detective was remanded till Friday. -NZ Truth, 11/10/1919.
The "Silent Witness" case was tried five times.
The "Silent Witness" case was tried five times.
"SILENT WITNESS" CASE
Norman Naylor in the box
REFUSES TO SPEAK
ADJOURNMENT FOR CONSULTATION.
For the fifth time, this morning James Reynold Hayne and Norman Naylor appeared in the dock to stand their trial before the Supreme Court on a charge of using an unlawful instrument to procure abortion.
The case has already become almost historical in the records of New Zealand criminal trials. The events on which the charge against the accused was based occurred almost a year ago, in Dunedin. Twice last year the two, the elder man (Hayne), a Dunedin chemist, and the younger, a butcher's assistant in the Waimate district, were tried in Dunedin, and twice the jury disagreed. The case was then removed to Wellington, and came before the Court at the February sittings. The principal witness in the case, the girl Gladys Batchelor, who had given evidence in the initial hearing in the Magistrate's Court freely, and with increasing reticence at the subsequent trials at Dunedin, absolutely refused to speak at Wellington. The case became known as "The Silent Witness" case. The trial did not proceed at the February sessions, but was postponed until May. The girl then persisted in her reticence, and was sentenced by Mr. Justice Herdman to nine months' imprisonment for contempt of Court. It was strongly urged, by the Council for the Crown, and upheld by the Judge, that the ends of justice must not be defeated by the obduracy and obstinacy of a witness. In February, the girl Batchelor had claimed privilege, on the ground that in giving evidence she might incriminate herself, but in the meantime the Crown, to clear that obstacle to the procedure, charged her with conspiracy to procure a miscarriage and with permitting an instrument to be used. She was arraigned at Dunedin, found guilty of permitting the use of an instrument and sentenced to be imprisoned until the rising of the Court. As the Court rose immediately, the sentence was nominal. The fact that she was free from danger did not, however, break her silence, for which accordingly she paid the penalty.
At the February sittings, Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the accused, and in May, during the absence of Mr. Wilford in America, Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for Naylor and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for Hayne. At the hearing today Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wilford for Hayne, and Mr. A. Fair for Naylor.
The following jury was empanelled: — Neville Fairfax Willoughby, John Oates, Walter Fraser, Hugh Joseph Sullivan, Arthur Edward Barnes, Harry Gates, John Joseph Robinson, Patrick Kelly, David Taylor, John Macfarlane Sampson, Arthur Marsden, and Patrick Joseph Murphy.
Mr. Fair exercised to the full his right of six challenges on behalf of Naylor, and Mr. Wilford challenged four on behalf of Hayne.
Mr. Hugh Joseph Sullivan was chosen foreman.
Before the Crown Prosecutor entered into his summary of the case, Mr. Wilford reminded his Honor, (Sir Bassett Edwards), who presided at the February hearing, that Mr. MacGregor, then Crown Prosecutor, applied under section 431 of the Crimes Act that the jury should be dismissed and the trial postponed until the next sittings. Against the postponement, as counsel for Hayne, he had protested, and Mr. MacGregor had given the assurance that the case would be then decided. Mr. Wilford urged that Hayne had twice been tried at Dunedin, and twice had appeared in Wellington. Surely there must be some finality in the case. The Crown should exercise discretion when to stop. Mr. MacGregor was now Solicitor-General, and could carry out the assurance he had given and order the proceedings to be discontinued. He would ask that the undertaking given by the Crown should be carried out.
His Honour: I gave no undertaking, Mr. Wilford. If you have any grievance your course is to represent it to the Solicitor-General, and, if that is not satisfactory, to the Attorney-General. I have no control over the officials.
Mr. Macassey said: It was no undertaking but simply an intimation. On the last occasion he was acting under the instructions of the Attorney-General himself.
After reviewing the main facts of the case on the lines of the story given at the previous trials, Mr. Macassey said that the Crown did not propose to call evidence against Naylor, and that the jury might acquit him.
His Honour directed the jury accordingly.
Mr. Macassey then asked Naylor to enter the witness box, and give evidence. This, with some hesitation, Naylor did.
Naylor described himself as a labourer working in Waimate in September last. He knew Gladys Batchelor.
Mr. Macassey: "You were keeping company with her?"
Witness: "Am I to answer that question?"
His Honour: "You are here to give evidence. That is the reason why you are being acquitted."
The witness then, with considerable, reluctance, admitted keeping company with Gladys Batchelor, who became pregnant. He declined to answer a further question involving Hayne, asking whether he was to understand that Hayne was being acquitted.
His Honour: "Hayne is on his trial. You will understand that a witness must give evidence, if called upon to do so. All Judges are agreed that if a witness refuses to answer questions which are put to him by the Court he must be severely punished. That is called contempt of Court, but it is not really contempt of Court, it is contempt of public justice. If by arrangement with a witness a person charged with a criminal offence could escape, it would bo a monstrous frustration of the ends of justice. No witness is allowed to refuse to answer a lawful question. It is committing a serious offence against the community to allow a criminal to go unpunished. You must answer questions put by Mr. Macassey, or you must take the consequences."
The witness asked for leave to have a word with his solicitor.
His Honour declined to allow it.
Mr. Fair pointed out the witness might be afraid of incriminating himself in some other charge. He would like time to consider the position with a view of sustaining it by argument. This was entirely a surprise to him and he would ask for an adjournment until the afternoon to consider the new aspect. The witness might be entitled to refuse to answer.
His Honour: "If this man gives evidence truthfully he runs no risk whatever. If you raise an objection, it may be followed by another application to the Crown, for an adjournment. You know what happened to the last witness who refused to give evidence. It is quite impossible to allow a witness to frustrate the ends of justice. He was acquitted that he might be able to give evidence without fear."
His Honour finally granted an adjournment until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
NAYLOR GIVES EVIDENCE.
At the resumption of proceedings Mr. Fair said he had considered the case and could raise no valid objections to the witness's answering the questions on the ground of incriminating himself. At the same time he asked permission to remain in Court to note any objection that might he raised.
His Honour: "You can certainly remain in Court and watch proceedings." The witness then re-entered the box and denied knowledge of Miss Batchelor's pregnancy. He denied giving her money, and communicating with Hayne. He did not know that she went to Dunedin until the first hearing before the Magistrate. He did not receive a telegram from her in Dunedin.
Mr. Macassey: "Did you receive a telegram from her between Friday, 12th September, and Friday, 19th September?" — "No."
"Did you send her money to Box 229 in Dunedin?'' — "No."
"Did you know Miss Batchelor received £30 in Dunedin from Waimate?" — "No."
"You say positively you did not send the sum of £30 addressed to Miss Gladys Batchelor, Box 229, Dunedin?" — "I do."
"You swear that?" — "I do."
"Did you give Miss Batchelor a slip of paper giving Hayne's address, Box 299, Moray-place, Dunedin?" — "No."
"Did you receive any communication from Miss Batchelor?" — "None whatever."
"You say you never received a telegram from Dunedin giving address 'my name, box 229, Dunedin'?" — "No."
"This telegram is addressed N. Naylor, care Green and Co., Waimate — was that your address?" — "Yes."
"It says '£30, don't register, address my name box 229, Dunedin' — did you receive it?" — "No."
"You knew nothing'about this operation at all?" — "Nothing whatever."
"When did you hear about it?" — "When I was first arrested."
"Have you discussed this case with Hayne since?" — "Yes, of course, I have had conversation about the trial."
"Can you remember anything in the conversation?" — "Nothing at all."
Mr. Macassey: "I ask leave to assume that this witness is hostile."
His Honour: "Of course, you can assume that."
Mr. Macassey: "You knew that Miss Batchelor became pregnant?''
Witness: "No."
His Honour then asked for the Court reporter's note, and read the answer given before lunch by the witness when he admitted she had told him she was pregnant.
His Honour: "And you say now she did not tell you?" — "Yes."
Mr. Macassey: "And would you contradict her if she says so?" — "Yes."
Witness again repeated his denial of giving Miss Batchelor Hayne's address, of arranging with her to go to Dunedin, of sending her £30, of receiving a telegram from her, of knowing that she had gone to Dunedin.
Mr. Macassey: "You heard her evidence in the lower Court and in the Supreme Court — was she telling lies?" — "I suppose so."
His Honour: "Just as much as you are telling the truth?" — "Yes."
Mr. Macassey then recited the evidence of Gladys Batchelor in the lower Court. The jury was assured this was not evidence against the prisoner, but was for the purpose of refreshing the memory of the witness.
Witness persisted in his denials of the statements made by Gladys Batchelor in her evidence. She must be telling lies, witness said.
Mr. Macassey: "You realise you are on your oath?" — "Yes."
"Have you told the truth?" — "I have."
His Honour: "Why did you refuse to give evidence until you consulted your solicitor?" — "I wanted to know where I stood."
"If you knew nothing about this unfortunate girls pregnancy and the consequence, why could you object to answer the question?" — No answer.
"Of course, you cannot answer that; I did not expect you could." The witness then retired from the box, and Mr. Macassey called Gladys Batchelor. His Honour directed that Naylor must remain in Court.
Mr. Wilford asked that the Court should be cleared for a reason he did not desire to explain.
THE "SILENT WITNESS" AGAIN.
His Honour directed that a certain third party should remain in Court. Gladys Batchelor gave her age as 21, but remained absolutely silent during a series of questions that followed. She declined to say whether she knew Naylor or Hayne — simply remained silent. Mr. Macassey: "Miss Batchelor, why don't you answer my question?" — No answer.
"Have you determined you will not answer any questions?" — No answer.
"Do you decline to answer any questions?" — No answer.
"Do you still decline to answer any questions?" — No answer.
At this-stage the Judge suggested that Mr. Macassey make application for adjournment until to-morrow. He desired to consult the other Judges in Wellington as to whether this witness should not suffer further punishment.
Mr. Macassey agreed, but before the witness stood down he said he hoped she understood that Naylor was acquitted of crime and no evidence was offered against him and he was now free.
Witness (speaking for the second time): "I am quite aware of the fact."
His Honour announced that the Court was adjourned until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. Wilford mentioned the matter of bail for Hayne.
His Honour: "I don't suppose he will run away. I don't see how he can run away; perhaps, if he did, it would save us a lot of trouble."
His Honour added a word to the jury, who, he said, no doubt, would not listen to any blandishments on the part of Mr. Hayne or anybody else on the part of the Crown or otherwise. They would quite understand that the Crown merely desired that there should be a fair trial — a fair trial, his Honour repeated emphasising the word "fair" — when a serious crime was alleged. The continued silence of the witnesses did not lend a very nice complexion to the case, when they had nothing to fear if they answered every question fully and frankly. The Court then adjourned. -Evening Post, 9/8/1920.
Hayne was not convicted in the Gladys Batchelor "Silent Witness" case.
THE HAYNE CASE
Hayne was not convicted in the Gladys Batchelor "Silent Witness" case.
ALLEGED ABORTION
Chemist Hayne Charged Again
EVIDENCE OF HIS ALLEGED PATIENT.
Case Adjourned and Bail Refused.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) James Reynold Hayne, the Dunedin chemist, was once more collected last week by Detective Palmer, on a charge of unlawfully using an instrument on a woman with intent to procure a miscarriage. The woman in the case this time, Violet Ada Atkins, belongs to Timaru, and is a married woman separated from her husband. Hayne appeared before Magistrate Widdowson on two occasions last week at Dunedin, and in each case bail was refused. As the woman was considered to be in a dangerous condition at the Timaru Hospital, Chief-Detective Bishop said it would be necessary to have depositions taken there as soon as possible. Accused was remanded to Timaru, and at a late hour on Friday night, Dr. Stringer, R.M.O., Timaru Hospital, considered it advisable, owing to the woman's state, which had become worse, to have the magistrate and police summoned. Accordingly, Inspector Hastie and Detective Norman Abbot got busy, and Lawyer B. S. Irwin, the accused Hayne, Detective Palmer, Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., and others put in a prompt appearance at the patient's bedside. Detective Norman Abbott was in charge of the case for the police. Chemist Hayne, the accused, was formally charged, and the magistrate explained to witness that she had the option of claiming privilege on the ground that the evidence
MIGHT INCRIMINATE HERSELF. She said she understood that, and preferred to give evidence. The following is the woman's statement in her own words: I am thirty-five years of age. My husband is Charles Valentine Atkins. I have been living apart from him for twelve months, with my people in Stafford street, Timaru. Their name is Hilton. About October I went to Dunedin. It was Thursday, and I think it was the sixth. When I arrived at Dunedin I stayed for the first night at the Leviathan, under my own name, Mrs. Atkins. Next day I went to Hayne's, in the morning. I told him I was in trouble and how far I was — about four and a-half or nearly five months. Hayne said, "Yes." He told me what to do and what time to come round. He told me to go home and have a bath, and come back at 5.30. I did. When I went back I went through the shop, through one room and another room. I stopped in that room; it was a bedroom. I got my clothes off, and got into bed. There was light in the room, and it was about 6 p.m. Hayne came in and fixed me up. I don't know what he did. He performed something, but I did not see what he used, as I was lying down flat. I fell asleep and nothing was done after that. Something was used again on Saturday. He also did something else — something different. I did not feel anything for a few days. On Wednesday he took it away. He took the child away with the hand.
I WAS FIXED UP, and that was the end of it. The nurse was present at the time. She just sat by me. I was given lotions at times if I could not sleep or was in pain. The nurse used the douche two or three times. She used the douche before the child was taken away. The room I was in was a bedroom — a very nice room with two beds. It was a room with a staircase. The bed fitted in under the staircase. The other bed was just made, and there was no one in it until Monday. I saw someone go into it on Monday. The person was a female, as I heard her. Her bed was screened off by a gold and black screen. I got up on Friday, but had my meals in bed. I noticed some pictures on the walls: dogs, cats and such like. I saw some little dogs and cats alive in the diningroom and outside. The dogs were little fluffy ones with turned up tails. I looked out of the diningroom window and I saw dogs down below on the pavement: there were a good crowd of dogs. When I saw Hayne first he said I was not to take any luggage to the house, and I paid for the operation when I went in at about 6.30 on the Friday night.
I PAID FIFTY-TWO GUINEAS to Hayne himself. He (indicating Hayne) is the man who performed the operation. I left Dunedin by the second express on Saturday morning and returned to Timaru to my people. I went up to my sister's, and was taken bad. I went up to my sister's, Mrs. Williams, at Roslyn terrace, and left on Monday for the hospital — October 17. The fifty-two guineas was not my own. I got that from the party that got me into trouble.
Dr. Stringer said that the witness was quite able to answer questions. Lawyer Irwin remarked he would not cross-examine her.
IN COURT. On Saturday morning last, before Magistrate Mosley, at the Timaru Court, the accused appeared. Detective Norman Abbott applied for a remand to Dunedin and intimated November 5.
The magistrate said he would have to go to Dunedin, and continue the case, "Saturday is a great day in the Dominion," said Mr. Mosley to Lawyer Irwin.
Lawyer. Irwin: I know that, sir, but I will not be going this year. Accused was therefore remanded in custody to Dunedin to appear there today. Bail was refused. -NZ Truth, 5/11/1921.
SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST A DUNEDIN CHEMIST
(BY TELEGRAPH. — PRESS ASSOCIATION.)
CHRISTCHURCH, 17th Feb.
Hearing of the charges of manslaughter and attempting to procure miscarriage preferred against James Reynold Hayne, of Dunedin, chemist, was continued at the Supreme Court.
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 prisoner was the man who had brought about the miscarriage. The woman's story was perfectly clear and consistent, and was amply corroborated.
Mr. A. C. Hanlon, for accused, said that in law Mrs. Atkins was an accomplice of Hayne, because she was alleged to have gone to him and for the 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 prisoner upon that without corroboration? Surely not. The evidence in corroboration must tend to show that prisoner was the man who procured the miscarriage of the woman. 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 the deceased woman if there were any flaws at all in it. He submitted that serious flaws had been exposed. The Crown had harped upon her description of the place, but it proved nothing. The corroboration, he said, was the weakest possible. It had gone to show that Mrs. Atkins had not told the whole truth about the matter.
The jury retired at 3.45 in the afternoon, and returned at 8.6 o'clock in the evening, the foreman announcing that there was no hope of coming to an agreement.
The Crown Prosecutor moved for a new trial on the 27th inst, which was granted. Accused was liberated on bail of £1000. -Evening Star, 18/2/1922.
CHARGES AGAINST HAYNE.
(Per Press Association.) Christchurch, Feb. 27. The re-hearing of the charges against James Reynold Hayne, chemist, of Dunedin, was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning. The charges are of manslaughter and attempting to procure a miscarriage. At the first hearing the jury disagreed and were discharged and a new trial was ordered. New evidence was brought forward by the Crown relative to the letter-card from the deceased woman to her brother. It was alleged that, although its contents purported to show that the woman was out Dunedin when it was submitted, she was under treatment at Hayne's shop. Yet the address was in the writing of a female employed at Hayne's at the time, indicating that Mrs Atkins was then in the establishment.
JURY AGAIN DISAGREES.
In the Hayne case, the jury, after a retirement of four hours and 11 minutes, were recalled. In reply to his Honour, the foreman said there was no chance of the jury agreeing. The application of the Crown prosecutor for a new trial at the May sittings was agreed to. The accused was liberated on bail of £1000. -Fielding Star, 28/2/1922.
THE HAYNE CASE
JURY AGAIN DISAGREES.
QUESTION OF FOURTH TRIAL IN ABEYANCE.
ACCUSED RELEASED ON HIS OWN RECOGNISANCES.
(From Our Own Correspondent.) .... CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. The third trial of James Reynold Hayne, of Dunedin, on charges of manslaughter and of performing an illegal operation, took place to-day before Mr Justice Chapman and a common Jury.
On two previous occasions Hayne had been charged that. (1) on November 5, 1921, at Timaru, he did unlawfully kill one Violet Ada Atkins, thereby committing manslaughter, and (2) on or about October 7, 1921, at Dpnedin, he did unlawfully use an instrument or other means upon one Violet Ada Atkins, with intent to procure her miscarriage. At the first trial on February 19 the jury disagreed after a long retirement, and at the second trial, some week or two later, the jury announced that it could not agree after a retirement of four hours. To-day the jury again failed to agree.
Mr A. T. Donnelly (Crown Prosecutor), appeared for the Crown, and Mr A. C. Hanlon (Dunedin), with him Mr C. S. Thomas, appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.
Five jurors were challenged for the defence, and 16 ordered to stand aside by the Crown.
The prisoner closely scrutinised a copy of the jury list while the jury was being empanelled.
Mr Donnelly, in outlining the case for the Crown, read the depositions made by the woman (Mrs Atkins) in the Timaru Hospital, in the presence of prisoner and his counsel, and decided that the evidence of witnesses supplied ample corroboration of the deceased woman’s statement.
Evidence was given by Dr Stringer, Dr Ussher, and F. A. Hilton (deceased's brother), Douglas Appleby (of the Bank of New Zealand), called as a handwriting expert, Grace M. Wilson (of Dunedin), and Detective Palmer, all on lines given at previous trials.
Mr Hanlon called no evidence.
Addressing the court, Mr Donnelly said: there were three possible theories as to the death of Mrs Atkins: (1) That she died from the effects of natural abortion; (2) that someone other than accused procured abortion and caused her death; and (3) that Hayne was responsible for the death of the woman. He considered the Crown's evidence was concise. The stories of the witnesses and the dead woman’s depositions were true. Mrs. Atkins had no object in blaming Hayne, unless he had been guilty. Deceased’s story was entirely correct, and the description of Hayne’s premises was photographic. If her story had not been true she could hardly have pictured the room in Hayne’s shop. Miss Wilson was the addresser of the envelope in question, no matter how much she denied having done so.
Mr Hanlon said the Crown case should be so clear and cogent to establish the guilt of the accused as not to require any special pleading. The evidence of the woman was the evidence of an accomplice, but the jury had not had the opportunity of seeing the witness, nor of noticing her demeanour under examination and cross-examination. The Crown Prosecutor had asked what motives could have actuated the woman in making false accusations against the accused, but no man could understand the workings of the human female mind. He did not know why this woman had told this story against this man. In view of her having been an accomplice he urged the jury very carefully to scrutinise her evidence. There was no corroboration of the woman’s, allegation that the operation had been performed. He at some length with the evidence in Connection with a certain letter-card from deceased to her brother alleged to have been posted in Dunedin. There was, he said, no evidence to prove that the letter-card was posted in Dunedin. The Crown had at its command the officers of the Postal Department and the detective force, and it would have been an easy thing to prove, if the Crown could have proved, that the letter-card had been posted in Dunedin. That evidence would have been produced for an absolute certainty. As to the sum of £62 Mrs Atkins had withdrawn from the bank, and from which it was asserted she had paid 60 guineas to Hayne, counsel said the money had been in the bank for some two years, while in her depositions deceased asserted that the money she paid Hayne she had got from the man who had got her into trouble. That was not correct, unless she had been carrying on with the man for two years and he had given her money in respect of an earlier trouble; otherwise she appeared to have told a falsehood. Mr Hanlon submitted there was a considerable element of doubt in the case, and accused was entitled to the benefit of that doubt.
His Honor, in summing up, said that there were various varieties of accomplices. In the commonest cases an accomplice spoke in self-exculpation, consequently evidence of such accomplices had to be watched carefully. The difference between that class of case and the present one was that in the present case the woman had given her evidence when dying, and had nothing to fear, but there was no reason for self-exculpating evidence. It was for the jury to say whether, assuming there had been an illegal operation, there was any reason for the woman to fear, or to deliberately and carefully manufacture a case against the man who, as far as they knew, was a stranger, or virtually a stranger, to her when she went to Dunedin.. That the woman had a miscarriage was quite clear. The medical evidence was not very decisive, but Dr Stringer had expressed the opinion that while he would not state definitely that the miscarriage was the result of interference, the infection was more serious than would be expected from a natural miscarriage. As to whether there had been an illegal operation the jury could bring their minds to bear on all the circumstances which threw some light on a suggestion of that kind of thing. Of course, if they tore up the woman’s evidence there was no case at all. After having dealt with the alleged discrepancies in the evidence, his Honor referred to the evidence of the deceased woman, and said the central question was whether the jury found any reason to mistrust the woman. If they found any reason for any reasonable doubt they must give effect to it.
The jury retired at 4.18. p.m.
After being absent for some hours the foreman reported that no agreement had been reached. The judge sent them back, but at 9.40 p.m. they returned and said it was impossible to agree, and they were then discharged.
Hayne was released on bail on his own recognisance, and the judge stated that the question of a further trial would stand over till the Minister of Justice or the Attorney general determined whether a new trial shall be held. -Otago Daily Times, 13/5/1922.
His Honor, in summing up, said that there were various varieties of accomplices. In the commonest cases an accomplice spoke in self-exculpation, consequently evidence of such accomplices had to be watched carefully. The difference between that class of case and the present one was that in the present case the woman had given her evidence when dying, and had nothing to fear, but there was no reason for self-exculpating evidence. It was for the jury to say whether, assuming there had been an illegal operation, there was any reason for the woman to fear, or to deliberately and carefully manufacture a case against the man who, as far as they knew, was a stranger, or virtually a stranger, to her when she went to Dunedin.. That the woman had a miscarriage was quite clear. The medical evidence was not very decisive, but Dr Stringer had expressed the opinion that while he would not state definitely that the miscarriage was the result of interference, the infection was more serious than would be expected from a natural miscarriage. As to whether there had been an illegal operation the jury could bring their minds to bear on all the circumstances which threw some light on a suggestion of that kind of thing. Of course, if they tore up the woman’s evidence there was no case at all. After having dealt with the alleged discrepancies in the evidence, his Honor referred to the evidence of the deceased woman, and said the central question was whether the jury found any reason to mistrust the woman. If they found any reason for any reasonable doubt they must give effect to it.
The jury retired at 4.18. p.m.
After being absent for some hours the foreman reported that no agreement had been reached. The judge sent them back, but at 9.40 p.m. they returned and said it was impossible to agree, and they were then discharged.
Hayne was released on bail on his own recognisance, and the judge stated that the question of a further trial would stand over till the Minister of Justice or the Attorney general determined whether a new trial shall be held. -Otago Daily Times, 13/5/1922.
CHARGES AGAINST HAYNE
NOLLE PROSEQUI ENTERED
CHRISTCHURCH, Monday
The Crown law authorities have decided not to proceed further with the charge against James Reynold Hayne, of Dunedin, chemist, who already has been three times tried on a charge of causing the death of a young woman by an illegal practice. -Waikato Times, 22/5/1922.
James Hayne was finally to be convicted shortly after.
James Hayne was finally to be convicted shortly after.
THE HEINOUSNESS OF HAYNE
DUNEDIN'S CELBRATED CHEMIST CONVICTED
A Notorious Abortionist
SEVEN YEARS HARD LABOR
The cracked pitcher goes often to the well, but it comes home broken at last. For many years past James Hayne, now a mere septuagenarianist and a well-known chemist, practising in Dunedin, has faced both the lower and the Supreme Courts on charges of being a professional abortionist. Time after time juries, in the face of practically deliberate instructions from Judges, have, after lengthy charges, either disagreed or failed to convict the accused, and he seemed to bear a charmed life where his "profession" was concerned. However, the end of James Reynolds Hayne came last week, when he made what the presiding Judge characterised as "one of his periodical appearances'' on a charge of procuring abortion, and, after a brief adjournment of five and-twenty minutes, the Jury returned with a verdict of "Guilty," and Hayne, who is 71 years of age, was sentenced by Mr. Justice Sim to a term of seven years' imprisonment in the Paparua Gaol. On this occasion Hayne's assistant in his chemist's business was associated with the principal prisoner in the charge, but Elizabeth Simpson Inglis was acquitted and goes free. The case attracted considerable interest in Dunedin as well as in other parts of the Dominion owing to the accused's unenviable record.
The charge was heard before Mr. Justice Sim and the two accused were defended by Mr. Hanlon, whilst Mr. Adams acted for the Crown. The name of the young man and the young woman concerned in the case were ordered to be suppressed. In opening the case for the Crown, at some length, Mr. Adams stated that the accused were jointly charged with having, on May 19, used an instrument or some other unknown means to procure a miscarriage. Inglis, it was stated, besides acting a house-keeper for Hayne, combined with her domestic duties the offices of nurse or attendant in such cases as he undertook. When the condition of the girl in the case was ascertained she had a consultation with the young man who had got her into trouble, as a result of which he saw Hayne and Hayne told him to be careful as other cases had
COST HIM A LOT OF MONEY. The amount mentioned was £1300 and £1400, and Hayne intimated that he was prepared to perform an operation for a fee of £30. The young man returned with £20, but Hayne declined to move in the matter unless the £30 was paid down "cash on the nail."
The young man then left and sparred up the odd £10 from somewhere or another and the necessary arrangements were made, to "box on." Giving her mother to understand that that she was off on a holiday jaunt the girl pursued the even tenor of her way to Hayne's shop, where she was handed over to the tender mercies of Miss Inglis and promptly bedded down. After a examination and preliminary treatment the girl, the following day, was subjected to an operation by Hayne, Miss Inglis being present, and in the early hours of the next morning a miscarriage ensued. Miss Inglis called in Hayne, who, finding that more attention was required, remained in charge of the case himself. On May 23 the girl's condition became exceedingly serious and the two accused sat up with her by turns throughout the night. So serious did her condition become that on May 24 Hayne telephoned for Dr. de Lautour to attend. When the doctor arrived at the shop Hayne remarked,
"YOU WILL NOT PUT ME AWAY, WILL YOU?" The visiting doctor, finding the girl desperately ill, suggested her immediate removal to the hospital. Instead of accepting this advice, the girl was taken to her home, and the services of Dr. Fitzgerald, were called in. As a result of an examination he emphatically ordered her to the hospital, where Dr. North and Dr. Riley examined her. Both these doctors were of opinion that her condition was consistent with the use of an instrument and that the girl was in iniminent danger of losing her life. In view of this fact her depositions were taken early the next morning. Mr. Adams added that the law was perfectly plain upon the subject, doctors were not allowed to perform such operations, and when they were performed by other than skilled surgeons, a very grave danger ensued.
The girl in the case, who was the principal witness, was accommodated with a seat alongside the box and was accompanied during the proceedings by Ensign Coombs, of the Salvation Army, a female Probation officer. She gave evidence along the lines of that given in the lower Court, as already fully published in "Truth," and detailed her movements until her arrival at Hayne's establishment. She was met at the door of the shop by Hayne, who was wearing a long white coat, and was taken through the shop and put to bed in an inner chamber. She described the shop and room in detail and added that she saw a number of Persian cats and some small dogs about the premises.
To Mr. Hanlon she admitted that she could not recognise Dr. da Lautour as the man who attended to her. Hayne told her who it was. Miss Inglis, she thought, did not do anything to her while she was on the premises, but she did go home with her when she was removed in a taxi, although she had not previously mentioned this act. She was seven weeks in the hospital,
SUFFERING GREAT PAIN, and was told that she was on the verge of death. The young man, who was the other principal witness in the case, gave details of his interview with Hayne, who asked him if there was any chance of his going to the police, as previous cases had cost him over a thousand pounds. On his managing to secure £30, the amount Hayne offered to attend to the case for, arrangements were made for the girl to go to Hayne's shop, strictly by herself, and this course was followed. Witness then detailed subsequent visits to the shop, where he interviewed both the accused. Ultimately the girl was home in a taxi, Miss Inglis accompanying her.
To Mr. Hanlon: The girl was placed in the back of the car, between witness and Miss Inglis. Miss Inglis rang the bell when they arrived home and then left. The depositions were wrong if they stated that witness had sworn to sworn to seeing Dr. de Latour at Hayne's shop. If they stated that he said that he "heard a door bang at the painter's shop" they were again wrong. "Painter" was probably a mistake for "Hayne's."
Mr. Hanlon: But the depositions were read over to you, were they not?
Witness: Yes.
His Honor: The reading of the depositions is not always done in a perfect manner. They are frequently gabbled over.
Mr. Hanlon: Did you see anything of Persian cats and Pekingese dogs?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Hanlon: You did not mention these cats and dogs when giving evidence previously?
Witness: I may not.
Mr. Hanlon: Have you had a conversation with the police since the hearing in the Lower Court?
Witness: Only once.
Mr. Adams: I think it was I who first asked the question.
Mr. Hanlon: Yes. You seem to know a lot about these cats and dogs. (Laughter.)
The mother of the girl also gave evidence as to the condition of the girl when she arrived home, at which time witness was ignorant of her daughter's pregnancy. She received a letter, but did not know where it came from. Her daughter, when she arrived home, was extremely ill.
Dr. de Lautour stated that he had known Hayne for years and attended a call to his establishment on May 24. When he arrived there Hayne took him by the arm and led him through the shop to a room at the back, saying: "I have a patient I would like you to see only
DONT GIVE ME AWAY." There was an attendant present, but he could not say who she was. He saw the girl and found her desperately ill. He felt her pulse and took her temperature, which was abnormal. Hayne was present at the time and asked if it would be feasible to send the girl to her home at Maori Hill. The patient was suffering from peritonitis and had passed into a generally septic condition. He could not identify the girl nor, when he went to the hospital to see her could she identify him. She took him for another doctor.
Dr. Fitzgerald deposed to having been called to the girl's home on May 24. She was very ill and he diagnosed her as suffering from septic peritonitis. She admitted that she had had a miscarriage.
Dr. North, assistant gynaecologist at the Dunedin Hospital, gave evidence us to having examined the girl in consultation with Dr. Riley. They came to the conclusion that she was suffering from septic abortion, which was regarded as very serious. They examined her under an anaesthetic and found her condition very grave. The examination showed that she was suffering from septic absorption from a localised site. Her condition was so serious that he hesitated about allowing her depositions to be taken next morning.
Dr. Riley gave similar evidence, and added that the girl's condition was so grave that he and his colleague hardly expected her to live through the night.
Detective Beer stated that he arrested Hayne on May 25. He read the warrant over to him and Hayne asked: "How do I come into this?" He re-arrested Hayne on June 8, and at the same time arrested Miss Inglis.
The Crown Prosecutor stated that he did not intend to address the jury.
Mr. Hanlon, in addressing the jury, admitted that the offence charged was a very serious one, and the jury must be quite satisfied with the evidence of the Crown before recording a conviction. Suspicion alone was not sufficient. He reviewed the evidence at some length, and commented upon the fact that the girl did not identify Dr. de Lautour, nor did the doctor identify her. The young man said he saw the girl at Hayne's and also said he saw the doctor leaving there. At the hospital it was found that the girl had been tampered with. Had this evidence been given by reliable witnesses counsel would have said that there was a most serious charge to answer. But the evidence was not given by reliable witnesses. The two principal witnesses were jointly concerned in the alleged commission of a crime, which they alleged had been perpetrated by Hayne and Miss Inglis. The two were joint accomplices in the commission of a crime if a crime had been committed. Having found themselves
IN A TIGHT CORNER the young man had gone to Hayne to help him out and had then turned round and given him away. It must be clear to the jury that these two persons had made their statements for the purpose of protecting themselves and were trying to save their own skins. They could have been put in the dock, but in order to avoid this they were prepared to give people away by swearing to certain things having been done. What regard could be given to evidence of this character? Were these young people honest and straightforward? The evidence of a person who was a participator in a crime must always be regarded as tainted. The law was clear upon this point and it was the practice of Judges to warn a jury that it was not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. Corroboration required some independent testimony to connect an accused person with a crime. In this case he submitted that there was no such independent testimony. He reviewed the evidence outside that of the principal parties and held that it was not material. Why did not the Crown call the driver of the taxi-cab that took the girl home? Counsel suggested that the condition of the girl was more likely to have beert caused by her own action than by that of any outsider. The jury must come to the conclusion that the two witnesses upon whose evidence they were asked to convict were tainted and its duty was to return a verdict of "Not Guilty" against the two accused.
Summing up, his Honor said that there was only one count against the two accused. The case for the Crown rested almost entirely upon the evidence of the young woman and the young man concerned, and counsel for the accused had termed this as uncorroborated. Commonsense would, however, suggest that such evidence must be largely uncorroborated. An abortionist would not carry on his business where people were likely to be about. In a case of this kind the principal must necessarily be a party to the offence. It was his duty to point out that there was corroborative evidence. The suggestion had been made that these two principal witnesses had given evidence for the prosecution in order to protect themselves from prosecution. But there was nothing to prevent Hayne from bringing an action against these two, and it was nonsense to hold that the two had come forward to save themselves from prosecution. The Jury had to consider a matter of commonsense, and if they were satisfied that the evidence of the girl was true there was only one verdict they could bring in. They were surely not entitled to regard the evidence of the girl as a fabrication. His Honor proceeded to summarise the evidence at some length and continued: "It seems to me that it is only trifling with the matter to suggest that the person the doctor saw on the occasion of his visit was any other than the young woman concerned in the case" He did not see how they could look for stronger evidence than that counsel's remark that the girl's condition might be ascribed to some one other than Hayne simply left the hypothesis that Hayne was
A SKILLED ABORTIONIST. The suggestion that the girl had brought about her own condition could not be sustained. Had that been so it would have been unnecessary for her to have visited Hayne. If they were satisfied that the girl's story was substantially true they were entitled to find Hayne guilty. With regard to Inglis, the law was perfectly clear that if she assisted no matter in how humble a way, she was liable to be convicted of the principal offence. If would, however, be impossible to convict her without also convicting Hayne.
The jury, after a retirement of 25 minutes, returned with the following verdict: "We find the male accused, Hayne, guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of his age. We find the accused Inglis not guilty."
His Honor: "Inglis will be discharged and Hayne will be remanded for sentence.
When the jury returned to Court, Hayne, who had taken the keenest interest in the proceedings, punctuated with occasional smiles, turned pale and seemed on the verge of collapse, but was at once removed by a friendly constable to the cells below the Court room. Later, when presented for sentence, the convicted man looked ill and worn, and when a sentence of
SEVEN YEARS' HARD LABOR was pronounced on him he seemed dazed and shrunken. He had said to a friend that he expected four years at the outside.
Mr. Hanlon stated that the prisoner was 71 years of age and suffered badly from rheumatism, as well as having a very bad heart. "I can only ask your Honor," proceeded counsel, "to give such weight as you can possibly can find your way to do to the recommendation made by the jury that the mercy of the Court be extended to the accused in the matter of sentence. I would also ask your Honor if you would take into consideration the fact that he is a qualified chemist and this conviction would, of course, mean that he be struck off the roll of chemists; and that in addition to whatever punishment your Honor imposes he will not be at liberty to carry on his profession, and that in itself is a very severe punishment. I would ask your Honor to extend such leniency to accused as you can see your way to do under the circumstances of the case."
His Honor said: "Prisoner at the bar, the jury have recommended me to mercy on account of your age. I always treat such a recommendation with great respect, and give effect to it as far as possible in fixing punishment. According to the police report it is common knowledge all over the Dominion that you are an abortionist of some skill, and it is stated that you several times stood your trial for this offence, but have never yet been convicted. In view of the police report, and in view of the circumstances of the present case, it is my plain duty to impose a substantial term of imprisonment, and, I may add, it would have been longer but for the recommendation to mercy. Hitherto juries have displayed a
CURIOUS RELUCTANCE TO CONVICT in your case, however complete the evidence may be. Happily that reluctance has been overcome, and at length twelve men have been found who have been prepared to observe the oath they have taken and return a verdict according to the evidence. Dunedin has been redeemed from the reproach of being a city in which a notorious abortionist was able to carry on with impunity and laugh at the law. It maybe true, as Horace has said, that justice moves pede claudo (with lame foot), but it has managed at last to overtake you, and you have to suffer punishment. The sentence of the Court is imprisonment for seven years, and you will be kept to hard labor."
Hayne left on Saturday morning, under police escort, for Paparua Prison, where his sentence will be served. -NZ Truth, 18/8/1923.
| JAMES REYNOLD HAYNE (Who Goes Into Retirement For Seven Years.) -NZ Truth, 18/8/1923. |
The repercussions of the Hayne case spread a little further.
A DUNEDIN DAME.
Prominent Citizeness Charged.
Alleged Bribing of Witness in Hayne Case.
A bit of a stir was created In Dunedin last week when it became known that Mrs. J. K. Macfie, one of the foremost workers in philanthropic circles — especially amongst returned soldiers — was to be charged with attempting to bribe the principal witness in a criminal case. And the "by joves", etc., were more emphatic when 'twas found that the case in question was the Hayne case. The bribing is supposed to have been done at the Dunedin Hospital, where the girl lay ill.
The accused woman, who has been a member of the Otago Hospital Board for several years and who was always to the front when patriotic work was to be done, strenuously denies that she is guilty of the charge made. The case was to come up for hearing at the Police Court on Friday of this week. -NZ Truth, 7/7/1923.
ECHO OF THE HAYNE CASE
Alleged Suborning Of A Witness
Doings of a Dunedin Dame.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) Though there was interest in the Hayne case in Dunedin it was nothing to the wonderment and speculation over the affair of Mrs. Rosina Sarah Macfie, who was charged with having attempted to bribe the principal witness in the Hayne case not to give evidence. The woman has been prominent in Dunedin for several years past. She it was, by the way, who was courageous, or sensible, enough at the end of the war period to decline the O.B.E. for her services among soldiers and others. The man in the street, therefore, couldn't understand how and why she should get herself mixed up in an affair like the Hayne case. Even the women over their tea cups didn't quite agree that it was possible. Which is something in favor of anyone who is the subject of afternoon tea talk.
The case was not reached until late in the afternoon, and only part of the evidence was taken that day. Lawyer Hanlon appeared for the defendant and Superintendent Marsack prosecuted.
The superintendent asked that, as in the Hayne case, an order be made prohibiting the publication of the names of the female witnesses.
Mr. Hanlon: Why shouldn't they be published?
The Superintendent: Well, one reason is that it would immediately nullify the effect of the order in the other case.
Mr. Hanlon: It's a matter of indifference to me personally, but this business of suppressing names is a very bad practice if overdone, and it ought not to be readily assented to by the Bench.
The Bench: You are quite right, Mr. Hanlon. But, after all, this is but a preliminary inquiry and the question of whether the names should be suppressed altogether is a matter for the higher Court when the case goes before it.
Mr. Hanlon: Yes, I know, sir; but it is not in the interests of justice that witnesses should be cuddled up and told, "You come along and tell this, that and the other and your name won't be disclosed."
The superintendent here put in a protest, but couldn't stop the eloquent one. When the names of witnesses were disclosed those who were interested were given the opportunity to find out things that would assist the course of justice, said he.
The Bench agreed again.
Mr. Hanlon: However, the matter is entirely in your hands, your Worship. I've no wish to dictate.
The Bench decided to make the order.
The superintendent then asked that the charge should be slightly amended. At present it was that the accused attempted to dissuade by bribe — (the principal witness in the Hayne case) from giving evidence. He asked that the words "or other corrupt means" be inserted after "bribe." The Bench said so be it.
The superintendent began to relate "the short facts," when Mr. Hanlon said if the story was to be related he must ask that the witnesses be ordered out of Court. There was no reason why their memories should be refreshed.
The Superintendent: Well, I won't open. Call the girl.
So the girl gave evidence. On June 11, she said, she was lying ill in Batchelor Ward in the Dunedin Hospital. That evening her brother came to see her and while he was in the room a lady came in.
Do you see her in Court? — Yes there (indicating the accused).
The lady asked witness's brother to go out of the room, and then said, "Are you Miss ...?" — I said I was, and she said, "Here's a small cake for you," and gave me a bag of cakes. She then said, "A friend of mine asked me to come and tell you that Miss Inglis has been arrested." She said if I would say nothing about Miss Inglis being there Mr. Hayne would
GIVE ME A LOT OF MONEY; but if I did speak Miss Inglis would get ten years in gaol." I told her I didn't want the money, and she asked me if I'd promise not to speak. But I told her I wouldn't promise; I told her the detectives knew all about it, and she said she wouldn't bother me any more then and asked me how I was. I told her I'd been under an operation that day, and she went away. My brother came into the room after that.
Did you tell your, brother? — No, I was upset. The nurse came m, too.
The senior nurse told how she saw Mrs. Macfie coming out of the last witness's room and heard sounds of weeping coming from there, too. She went in and found the girl crying and on
THE VERGE OF HYSTERIA. The brother had just gone in and the girl told witness something.
The witness, as is usual with those unacquainted with the law of evidence, seemed puzzled and amused that she should not be allowed to say what it was the girl told her. The superintendent kindly put it in proper legal form for her: "She told me something which accounted for her being upset, and in consequence of this I spoke to her brother who in consequence of this went away."
This hurdle surmounted, the witness went on. The girl was on the "dangerously ill" list at the time, she said, and no one was allowed to visit patients on that list without the doctor's express permission. A notice to that effect was on the door. In consequence of the girl's excited condition witness sent for the doctor and Dr. Perry came in.
The next witness was a buxom lady, who said she was cleaning out the offices at the hospital about 7 p.m. on June 11 when Mrs. Macfie (whom she knew) spoke to her. Mrs. Macfie went away then, but witness didn't notice where. A few minutes later she saw Mrs. Macfie again by the house stewards' door. She spoke again, and while they were talking a young man came up and called Mrs. Macfie away.
The girl's brother was here brought forward and witness identified him as the said young man. All the young man said, she added, was, "Excuse me, can I speak to you?" Witness then walked away and heard nothing more of what was said.
At this stage the hearing was adjourned till Monday. Bail was fixed at self in £200 and one surety of £200 or two of £100 each.
When the case was resumed on the Monday the brother of the girl told the Court that when Mrs. Macfie had left he found his sister in a
SEMI-HYSTERICAL CONDITION. Mrs. Macfie told him her name was Miss Brown and that she had a message for the girl, but what that message was she wouldn't say. The next witness was Detective Beer, who read Mrs. Macfie's statement made to him to the effect that she had told the girl not to worry, to pull herself together, and that when she came out of the hospital she (Mrs. Macfie) would look after her. As to having given the name of Brown, she denied it, and she also reckoned that she hadn't said anything about Hayne coming to light with a hatful of money nor Miss Inglis being given a term in the cooler.
This finished the case for the Crown and defence was reserved for the Supreme Court to which accused was remanded on bail. -NZ Truth, 14/7/1923.
ALLEGED SUBORNING
Echo Of The Hayne Case
Hospital Visitor Vindicated.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) Following on the hearing of Hayne's case the trial was commenced of Rosina Sarah Macfie on a charge that she attempted to defeat the course of justice by trying to cajole the girl who was operated on by Hayne to keep her mouth shut. It was alleged that she visited the girl in the hospital and mentioned a little matter of a few pounds to her if she would keep all that had transpired with the chronic abortionist to herself. By order of the Court the girl's name was suppressed as before. lawyer Hanlon was on deck on this woman's behalf also — it's an ill wind that blows a lawyer no good.
The evidence of the young girl was to the effect that after she had been in hospital about three weeks the prisoner came to see her, and after telling her that she was a stranger in a strange land — witness had only been in the country for a year — added the cheery message that it was always the
"WOMAN WHO PAYS." She then told her that Miss Inglis had been arrested and that Hayne would give her (witness) a lot of money if she said nothing about the operation. The visitor then departed after cautioning witness to say nothing about her visit.
The young woman's brother said he was at the hospital on the day of prisoner's visit. She gave her name as Miss Brown, and said she had a message for the patient. The woman was admitted to the room and asked him to leave for a few minutes. After prisoner left the young girl was found sobbing and in a very agitated state.
Dr. Perry said he was summoned to the ward after the woman's departure and found the young girl crying but not hysterical.
The prisoner elected to give evidence on her own behalf, and she stated that she had never seen. Hayne until he was charged in the lower Court, and that she had never spoken to Miss Inglis, though she knew her by sight. For eight years she had been in the habit of visiting patients at the hospital, and on the evening when the offence was alleged to have occurred she was standing talking to someone outside the hospital, when up came the girl's brother. He was in a towering rage, and blurted out: "What have you been
DOING TO MY SISTER?" Witness replied: "I can only tell you what I told you inside." She added that she had thought when she first saw him that he was the girl's lover, and that if she had known he was her brother she would not have asked him to leave the room while she delivered the message. Witness expressed sorrow at having upset the girl, and offered to go back and sit with her and cheer her up. She didn't go back, but she further told the brother that if she could do anything for the girl when she came out she would do so, as she had done the same for many girls. She emphatically denied to the Court that she had used the name of Miss Brown.
To Crown Prosecutor Adams witness said she did tell the patient that Miss Inglis had been arrested, and she noticed the intimation
UPSET HER VERY MUCH. She had nothing particular to tell the girl when she asked the brother to leave the room.
Mary Coleman, residing in King Street, said she was the one to whom prisoner was talking when the brother came up, and she related what took place on the same lines as the conversation was recapitulated by prisoner.
In his summing up of the evidence to the jury his Honor (Mr. Justice Sim) observed in regard to the question of motive, and the fact that prisoner had emphatically declared that she did not know either of the accused in the previous case, that a
GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE was being used on behalf of Hayne and Miss Inglis, and one never knew what strings were being pulled on behalf of Hayne, not necessarily by Hayne himself. Referring to the girl's definite statement that a bribe had been offered, his Honor asked if it was likely that the girl would invent the story to get a woman she had never seen before into trouble. Accordingly, there were only two views to be taken; one was that the girl was speaking the truth, and the other that she had made a mistake. There was the brother's evidence that the prisoner gave a fictitious name and also that she asked him to leave the room. Prisoner had said she had nothing of a private nature to say to the girl, so why, asked his Honor, should she have asked the young man to leave the room? Her excuse — and his Honor
MADE NO FURTHER COMMENT on the point — was that she thought the young man was the girl's lover. The jury made up their minds about the case in twenty minutes, and their decision was that prisoner was not guilty. She was discharged immediately. -NZ Truth, 18/8/1923.
STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER
Per Press Association.
Wellington, Oct. 18
By Order-in-Council, the name of James Reynold Hayne, of Dunedin, is to be erased from the pharmaceutical register of New Zealand, he having been convicted of an offence, which, in the opinion of the Pharmacy Board of New Zealand, renders him unfit to be on the register. -Fielding Star, 19/10/1923.
After Two Years
Hayne, Notorious Abortionist, Liberated
It is just on two years ago since James Reynold Hayne, well-known chemist of Dunedin and notorious abortionist, was incarcerated on a charge of carrying on his sinister business. On June 8 last, Hayne shook off the shackles of the Terrace Gaol, Wellington, and is now at liberty. Hayne, who is an old man, 73 years of age, was found guilty at Dunedin two years ago of using an unlawful instrument to procure a miscarriage. In passing sentence of seven years imprisonment, Mr. Justice Sim said: "According to the police report it is common knowledge all over the Dominion that you are an abortionist of some skill, and it is stated that you several times stood your trial for this offence, but have never yet been convicted. In view of the police report, and in view of the circumstances of the present case, it is my plain duty to impose a substantial term of imprisonment, and, I may add, it would have been longer but for the recommendation to mercy. Hitherto, juries have displayed a curious reluctance to convict in your case, however complete the evidence may be. Happily that reluctance has been overcome, and at length twelve men have been found who have been prepared to observe the oath they have taken and return a verdict according to the evidence. Dunedin has been redeemed from the reproach of being a city in which a notorious abortionist was able to carry on with impunity and laugh at the law. It may be true, as Horace has said, that justice moves pede claudo (with lame foot) but it has managed at last to overtake you and you have to suffer punishment. The sentence of the court is imprisonment for seven years and you will be kept to hard labor." Hayne has, therefore, only served two years of his seven years' sentence. Lately his health gave way, and, following official representations, the man was released and has entered a nursing home in the North Island. It is understood that a condition of his release is that he does not return to the South Island. -NZ Truth, 25/7/1925.
PERSONAL
The death occurred at the Otaki Hospital on Wednesday of Mr. J Hayne, at one time a well-known chemist of Dunedin. aged 71 years. The deceased had only been in hospital for three weeks, previous to this he had been staying at Otaki beach. -Otaki Mail, 23/7/1926.
No comments:
Post a Comment