Back in the day, single women who needed an income were often driven to do things which were beyond the usually accepted norms of their society. I do not know why Mary Jane Clark performed "illegal operations," but it is certain that there was a need for people, usually women, who could "fix things up" when other women were in a certain, unwanted, condition.
SUPREME COURT
IN DIVORCE
CLARK v. CLARK.
Mary Jane Clark v. Walter Clark, petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. Mr Irwin, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in Dunedin in 1895. They had resided at Otakou, Portobello, and at Dunedin. There were four children of the marriage. The husband had gone to England as a military policeman, and on his return appeared to be very unsettled. On Boxing Day, 1918, the respondent had returned to New Zealand, and after a few days he said that he was going to Christchurch to get work. Communications with Christchurch afterwards failed to discover his whereabouts, and Mrs Clark went to Christchurch. The petitioner called at the Christchurch Soldiers’ Club, where she saw respondent's writing instructing that letters for him were to be redirected to Wellington. She went to Wellington, where she had seen her sister. The sister said that the respondent had stated that he was on the way to Auckland. This was the last heard of the respondent. It was believed that he had returned to the Old Country. He had not drawn his gratuity money, which had since been paid to his dependents. A warrant had been issued in 1919 for the arrest of the respondent, without result. Corroborative evidence was given by petitioners two daughters. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. -Otago Daily Times, 21/9/1922.
MOTHER'S VIGIL BY DAUGHTER'S BEDSIDE
Married Woman Arrested On Grave Charge Following Young Girl's Death In Hospital
STARTLING REVELATIONS AT INQUEST ON JESSIE SMART
(From "N.Z. Truth's" Oamaru Representative.) Mystery surrounds the tragic death in Oamaru Public Hospital on December 5, of pretty Jessie Elizabeth Smart, a nineteen-year-old girl employed at the Oamaru Woollen Mills. There was a sensational sequel on December 26, when detectives arrested Mrs. Mary Jane Clark, of Dunedin, charging her with having committed an unlawful act, thereby causing the death of a young woman, and with unlawfully using an instrument on the girl. A remand was granted and the case will be heard at Oamaru on January 25.
WHEN the inquest concerning the death of 19-year-old Jessie Smart was resumed before District Coroner W. H. Frith last week, Crown Solicitor Creagh watched the proceedings on behalf of the police.
The mother of the girl, Elizabeth Alicia Smart, a middle-aged woman, clearly laboring under the stress of emotion, said that on November 26 her daughter, before leaving for work, informed her that she was going to Ngapara for the week-end with a Mrs. Thorpe and would be back on the Monday.
She did not see her until the following Thursday, when she arrived home very ill.
The witness immediately sent for Dr. Orbell. Her daughter was again attended by the doctor on the Friday, when he said that an instrument had been used on the girl
Jessie, in the presence of the doctor, then informed her mother that she had been to Dunedin in company with Mrs. Thorpe and visited a woman's place to have an operation performed.
The girl said that, a Mrs. Clark was the woman concerned. She also declared that "Chilcott had supplied the money."
Replying to the coroner, witness said her daughter told her that an operation had been performed on her by Mrs. Clark.
Continuing, the mother gave evidence (portion missing)
noon, while at work, she felt faint and went home. A certain event took place next day.
The girl would rather not tell who was the responsible party.
On examination certain signs were evident. The doctor decided that peritonitis had set m, whilst the previous happening was not complete.
He performed an operation under an anaesthetic at midnight and saw the girl again on the Saturday, when she was much the same, her temperature being 98.8 and the pulse 130.
Morphia was injected to relieve the pain. The patient's condition became worse as the afternoon advanced and she collapsed. Saline solution was given; witness and Dr. Orbell held a consultation, it being decided to operate.
The desperate plight of the girl, was explained to her; also the fact that she might not recover.
Asked if she would make a statement she said she had gone to Dunedin with a woman friend by the express on the previous Saturday and on the Sunday evening an operation was performed by a woman, to whose place her friend took her.
The doctor notified the girl's mother and also the senior-sergeant, as the girl indicated that she would willingly make a statement.
Visit To Dunedin
(portion missing) witness said that what he found was quite consistent with the use of an instrument.
Dr. Orbell, recalled, considered that In his opinion death was from acute peritonitis . . . due to an illegal operation.
Mrs. Jane Thorpe, a widow, working at the Oamaru Woollen Mills, was the next witness called.
Attired in a white silk blouse and blue skirt, with blue hat, her voice was scarcely audible at the reporters' table.
She told the coroner that in October last Jessie Smart informed her that she was in a certain condition and asked witness if she could do anything for her. Mrs. Thorpe replied in the affirmative and stated that she knew someone who could "fix her up."
She went to the Post Office on Tuesday, November 22, and rang up Mrs. Mary Jane Clark, of Dunedin, who answered the call.
She knew Mrs. Clark personally and had met her on two or three occasions. The witness said she was bringing down a girl on the following Saturday, to which Mrs. Clark agreed.
The coroner at this stage asked witness if there were any pre-arranged understanding of this nature, and (portion missing)
To the coroner, Mrs. Thorpe said she had been to Mrs. Clark's house on previous occasions and identified the furniture in the bedroom as the same she saw there previously.
She had no reason to know why Mrs. Clark had asked her to leave the room. They had not been there more than 15 or 20 minutes. She returned to Oamaru on the Monday morning by service-car and went to work that morning. Jessie Smart did not return to work after lunch. The girl had been all right after leaving Mrs. Clark's, but was ill travelling up in the service car. Jack Chilcott, witness alleged, had supplied her with the money. Questioned by the coroner, Mrs. Thorpe said she had previously met Mrs. Clark in Oamaru. With the same object in view, she had previously gone to Dunedin with a girl. The coroner said her position was an unenviable one, but he was satisfied that she had given her evidence in a satisfactory manner.
The witness smilingly and with a tilt of her head: "It is the truth."
When the next witness, John William Chilcott, a manufacturer of sweets at Oamaru, occupied the stand, the coroner asked him if he fully realized the gravity of his position in the light of the fact that he had made a statement whereby he and Mrs. Thorpe were (portion missing) -NZ Truth, 19/1/1928.
WHOSE VOICE ANSWERED WIDOW'S 'PHONE CALL?
Verandah Episode
Mary Jane Clark, Arrested On Grave Charges, Denies That She Received Fateful Message Over Wire
JACK CHILCOTT ADMITS HE PROVIDED GIRL WITH MONEY
(From "N.Z. Truth's" Oamaru Representative.) "I knew it wasn't legal to take this girl to Dunedin . . . and I was afraid of going to gaol for it," declared Mrs. Jane Ellen Thorpe, an important witness for the Crown, whose evidence was one of the sensational features of the trial of Mrs. Mary Jane Clark on charges of having committed an unlawful act and causing the death of a young woman. The court was cleared during the hearing of the case. John William Chilcott, an Oamaru confectioner, admitted having provided £24 with which to pay for an illegal operation, but insisted that the dead girl had not held him responsible for her condition. "A bit of a philanthropist," was counsel's comment. Mrs. Clark was committed for trial at the Supreme Court, bail being allowed.
NOT for some considerable time past has such intense interest been evinced in lower court proceedings as at the hearing in the Oamaru Magistrate's Court last week of charges arising out of the death of nineteen-year-old Jessie Elizabeth Smart, who died at the Oamaru Public Hospital on December 5 from acute peritonitis following an illegal operation.
A large crowd of spectators, including a considerable number of women, thronged the court, in which the cynosure of all eyes was the woman in the dock, Mary-Jane Clark, of Dunedin, who faced charges of having on November 27 unlawfully used an instrument upon the girl and with having committed an unlawful act, thereby causing the death of a young woman.
A tense atmosphere was apparent during the formal reading of the charges, but the accused woman, attired in black and wearing a fashionable hat and a light fur, remained cool and self-possessed despite the unenviable position in which she found herself.
COURT CLEARED
Magistrate H. W. Bundle ordered the court to be cleared during the hearing of the charges and on the faces of the spectators leaving the building. Keen disappointment was evident, those who had apparently taken their half-day in advance being very crestfallen.
Lawyer A. G. Creagh conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Crown, while Lawyer A. C. Hanlon, of Dunedin; appeared for the defence.
The first witness for the prosecution was Jane Ellen Thorpe, a widow, residing in Thames Street, Oamaru, who appeared in the box attired in a blue costume and white hat, displaying an air of confidence which was shattered only under the fire of Lawyer Hanlon's cross-examination.
Mrs. Thorpe said she was employed at the Oamaru Woollen Mills and knew Jessie Elizabeth Smart, with whom she worked.
She had also known Mrs. Clark about twelve months, the accused woman residing in McLaggan Street, Dunedin.
She saw her in Oamaru in August last, when Mrs. Clark visited witness at her home.
Lawyer Hanlon asked when all this occurred and questioned the relevancy of the statement, but counsel for the Crown pointed out that it was in August and was therefore relevant.
Continuing, witness said Mrs. Clark had informed her that she had been to see her sister.
She accompanied Mrs. Clark towards the railway station, as the latter was leaving for Dunedin by train.
They met a young woman she knew, Mrs. Eva Johnston, who worked at the mill, and witness introduced her to Mrs. Clark.
She and Mrs. Johnston then returned to work. On that occasion Mrs. Clark was wearing a wine-colored coat and hat to match.
Producing a coat, Lawyer Creagh asked whether it was the same one, to which witness replied: "It looks like it."
Mrs. Thorpe stated that Jessie Smart informed her in October that she was in a certain condition. When the girl asked if she could do anything for her, witness replied that she knew someone who could "fix her up."
Before that, witness said, she wanted the girl to go to the North Island with her, have the child and put it in a home.
The girl pleaded with her to get something done for her or she would commit suicide.
A few days later witness was in Jessie Smart's company, in Thames Street when she met a young man named John Chilcott..
Chilcott asked the girl: "How are things?" and as a result of the conversation handed over £24.
On Tuesday, November 22, witness went to the Oamaru Post Office about 8 p.m. to get a 'phone call through to Mrs. Clark in Dunedin.
Lawyer Hanlon interjected and raised the question of the admissibility of this statement as evidence.
Magistrate Bundle held that the witness could only say what she did.
Lawyer Creagh stated that he was calling this evidence to verify a certain remark which was passed by the man at the post-office counter.
Lawyer Hanlon: "Well, you are not entitled to. What did he do — not what did he say — is what we want to know."
Mrs. Thorpe said a woman answered the 'phone and she recognized the voice. To make sure, she asked if it was Mrs. Clark and the reply was in the affirmative.
Counsel for the defence again objected. He said this could not be allowed as evidence if witness had to ask whether Mrs. Clark was speaking.
Magistrate Bundle said he would note counsel's objection.
Continuing, witness said she asked Mrs. Clark how she was and received a similar greeting.
"I then said: 'I am bringing down a party on Saturday; you will understand what for. Will it be suitable?'
"Mrs. Clark replied: 'Yes, I will see you on Saturday, and rang off."
Mrs. Thorpe added that she had only heard Mrs. Clark's voice on two or three occasions, but she remembered it.
The money Chilcott gave her was in £5 notes and singles.
On Saturday, November 27, witness said she accompanied Jessie Smart to Dunedin by the 1.25 train. They booked at the Leviathan Hotel in their own names.
In the evening they went into a slot machine in Dowling Street and witness rang up Mrs. Clark.
A woman answered and witness asked: "Is that you, Mrs. Clark?"
Mrs. Thorpe told her who was speaking and asked: "What time would be suitable for the operation? The girl prefers Sunday." Mrs. Clark replied: "About 7.30." This closed the conversation.
On Sunday night, between 7.30 and 7.45, witness and the girl went to Mrs. Clark's place.
Mrs. Clark met them at the door and asked them to come in.
They were taken into a bedroom on the left-hand side going in the front door.
Mrs. Thorpe Introduced the girl. Mrs. Clark asked her age and whether she had ever been through "anything like this" before.
The girl replied in the negative and said she hoped she would never have to again.
Mrs. Clark asked witness to leave the room and she went on to the verandah.
A young woman came to the door and asked for Mrs. Clark, witness saying she was not in. At that moment Mrs. Clark came out and asked Mrs. Thorpe to go inside.
About five minutes later witness went back on to the verandah. Mrs. Clark and Jessie Smart then came out of the room.
They had been in the room about ten minutes. Mrs. Thorpe asked Jessie how she felt and the girl replied: "All right." Mrs. Clark said: "She will be all right."
The witness and Mrs. Clark then went into the bedroom. Mrs. Thorpe asked Mrs. Clark how much the operation cost and the latter replied that £10 would do.
The witness handed over a £6 note and £5 in singles.
Mrs. Thorpe had been in Mrs. Clark's house on two other occasions and had been in that particular bedroom.
After leaving Mrs. Clark's, witness and the girl returned to the Leviathan Hotel. Mrs. Clark's house was the only place they visited.
Mrs. Thorpe and Jessie returned to Oamaru next morning by Hunter's mail car, leaving Dunedin about 3.45 a.m. The car had to be stopped on account of the girl being ill.
Both went to work that morning, but Jessie did not return to work that afternoon, as she complained that she was not well.
She remained at Mrs. Thorpe's until Thursday morning when her brother-in-law came for her.
From the time she came back to Oamaru until she last saw witness the girl was very ill.
Mrs. Thorpe remembered Mrs. Neville's case in Wellington. She was in Dunedin at the time and asked Mrs. Clark how her sister (Mrs. Neville) was getting on.
Mrs. Clark replied: "It hurts me too much to talk about it."
Lawyer Hanlon: You knew, I suppose, that in what you did in this matter, you were committing a very serious crime? — Yes.
And you knew that in committing this crime you would receive a very long term of imprisonment? — Yes.
And you naturally wanted to avoid it if you could? — Yes.
To whom did you tell your story first? — Sergeant Shanahan.
And at that time, I suppose, you were made to realize the serious position you were in? — Yes.
And then you told as much as you knew about Mrs. Clark? — Yes.
Of course, you were told it would be for your own good if you told all you knew? — Yes.
Then you were asked a lot of questions and your answers were taken down? — Yes.
Where did this take place? — At the hospital first and then at my own home.
You got £24 from Chilcott and gave Mrs. Clark £10? — Yes.
What, did you do with the other £14? — Expenses came to close on £6 and I gave the rest back to Chilcott.
How much did you give Chilcott back? — About £8.
Where did you give it to him? — In my own house.
When? — About the beginning of the week following the operation, the same week as the girl died. I gave him single notes.
What is your occupation? What do you do? — I work at the mills.
Is it a fact that because you have been to Mrs. Clark's, you make this sort of thing your profession? — No.
What are you? — I am not that type of woman.
Oh, but you counselled this woman to do it? — Well, I didn't do the deed.
What were you frightened of? — I knew it wasn't legal to take this girl to Dunedin to Mrs. Clark for an illegal operation and I was afraid of going to gaol for it.
When you rang up Mrs. Clark, how did you ring, off? — I said: "Hurrah!"
No, no! That is not ringing off! What did you do? — I hung up the receiver.
It took some time, for counsel to elicit from Mrs. Thorpe how she rang up Mrs. Clark, witness replying that, she put a penny in the slot and dialed the number, but amended this statement by reversing the order.
To Lawyer Creagh, witness said she had made three statements.
The Crown Prosecutor was proceeding to ask witness whether she had divulged any names in the statement to the senior sergeant, when counsel for the defence interposed and raised an objection, which was upheld.
Lawyer Creagh: "When you made the first statement to Detective Nuttall on December 5, was any inducement held out?"
"I object to that," said Lawyer Hanlon.
The magistrate said witness had been cross-examined by counsel only in regard to the statement taken by Sergeant Shanahan.
"I will ask it again," said Lawyer Creagh.
"You won't ask it anywhere! It is beautiful if conversations are going to be allowed between detectives and witnesses," replied Lawyer Hanlon.
Gray Russell Hunter, an engineer, residing in Torridge Street, Oamaru, stated that he was the contractor for the "Otago Daily Times" service to Oamaru.
He knew Mrs. Thorpe, as she had travelled one Monday morning in the month of November from Dunedin to Oamaru in his car, accompanied by a girl.
He had since ascertained the girl's name. He saw her body at the hospital about a week later. The senior sergeant accompanied him. . . \
He had stopped twice on the journey from Dunedin on account of the girl being ill.
John William Chilcott, single, aged 24, a confectioner, of Oamaru, was the next witness.
He said he had known Jessie Smart since September 22. Shortly after he became acquainted with her he became aware that she was in a certain condition.
He met Mrs. Thorpe and Miss Smart one Friday night in November and had a conversation with them.
As a result of that conversation, he gave Mrs. Thorpe £24, as Miss Smart was going to Dunedin for an operation.
Lawyer Hanlon: An operation for what? — Ah illegal operation.
Mrs. Thorpe and Miss Smart had previously spoken to him about this operation.
Counsel: Of course, you must have known before or you would not have had £24 in your pocket. People don't walk round with £24-in their pockets every day. — I knew beforehand.
How much did you get back? — I don't know.
When did you get it back? Was it since this case was started? — Yes, the money was folded up and I put it in my pocket,
Did you know that Mrs. Thorpe was asked in the witness-box today how much she gave you? — No.
Where did you get the money? — Where do you think?
I don't know! Did you have it saved up? — I must have had. I had the money all the time and could have given it to them in the first place.
Chilcott stated that the girl had never accused him of being responsible for her condition.
Counsel: A bit of a philanthropist, aren't you, giving a girl money for an illegal operation when you weren't responsible? — The girl asked me.
To the Crown Prosecutor, Chilcott said he made a full statement to Detective Nuttall, after having previously made a statement to Sergeant Shanahan.
The next, important witness was Eva May Johnston, a married woman, residing in Humber. Street, Oamaru, who said she was employed at the woollen , mills, having started work there on August 4 last year.
She knew Mrs. Thorpe. Shortly after starting work, at the mills she remembered meeting her one dinner hour.
With Mrs. Thorpe was another woman, whom she did not know, Mrs. Thorpe introducing her as Mrs. Clark.
The witness recognized the accused woman in court as Mrs. Clark.
James George Currie, employed in the Oamaru Post Office as a telegraphist, gave evidence that he put through a call to Dunedin about 8 p.m., on November 22 for Mrs. Thorpe.
The telephone number was 13-649, Dunedin. He then went off duty.
He made a search of all cards for telephone calls during November and only one call was made for 13-649.
Detective William Roycroft, stationed at Dunedin, stated that on December 6 he prepared a warrant to search Mrs. Clark's house in McLaggan Street for evidence and certain articles used for an illegal purpose.
About 10.30 a.m., in company with Detective Hart and a police matron, he went to Mrs. Clark's house.
Her daughter informed him that Mrs. Clark was not at home and was not expected back until 3.30 p.m. that day.
Detective Hart and witness waited for the accused woman at her home, read over the search warrant and said they were there in connection with the death of a young girl named Smart, who had been illegally operated upon.
The detective also told Mrs. Clark that it was alleged Mrs. Thorpe and Miss Smart had visited her home on November 27, when an operation had been performed on Miss Smart.
Mrs. Clark said she did not know either Mrs. Thorpe or Miss Smart and they had not been to see her.
She then invited the detectives to search the house. This was carried out by witness and Detective Hart.
The former said he asked Mrs. Clark if she was prepared to make a statement, which she did, denying that she had received a telephone message from Mrs. Thorpe.
On the following morning, December 7, witness again visited Mrs. Clark's house and questioned her regarding a telephone message alleged to have been received by her from Mrs. Thorpe, of Oamaru, on the evening of November 24, 1927.
The accused woman denied that she knew a Mrs. Thorpe, or that she had received a telephone message from her.
On December 26 he went to the house with Detective Hart. He had a warrant for Mrs. Clark's arrest.
She made no reply when he read the warrant over.
After the court proceedings the same morning, in the presence, of Detective Hart and the police matron, he asked Mrs. Clark if she had a wine-colored coat. She said the coat was her own.
Dr. Ronald. S. Orbell, of Oamaru, gave evidence.
In company with Dr. Fitzgerald, witness saw the girl at the public hospital, when she was seriously ill and showed all the signs and symptoms of acute peritonitis.
The doctor conducted the postmortem in company with Dr. Fitzgerald and on what he saw the symptoms were consistent with an illegal operation having been performed.
Dr. Robert S. Fitzgerald, another Oamaru medico, testified to examining Jessie Smart on December 2. He administered an anaesthetic and performed an operation.
She died from acute peritonitis on December 5. Her condition was consistent with an instrument having been used.
Mary Hewatt, assistant-matron at Addington Reformatory, said she knew Mrs. Clark by sight.
She did not clearly recall a visit from Mrs. Clark in August, although from the records it was apparent that the accused woman had visited Addington on August 27. Mrs. Clark had made more than one visit .to Addington.
Lawyer Hanlon reserved his defence on both charges and Mrs. Clark was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court at Oamaru. Bail was renewed in self £200 and two sureties of £100, the accused woman to report to the Dunedin police twice weekly.
Mrs. Clark left the court accompanied by her two daughters and made her way in the dusk across-Thames Street to a waiting taxi, to take her departure for Dunedin. -NZ Truth, 2/2/1928.
COURT ACQUITS MARY JANE CLARK
Mystery of Pretty Jessie Smart's Tragic Death In Public Hospital Will Now Remain Unsolved
JURY REJECTS EVIDENCE OF ACCOMPLICES
(From "N.Z. Truth's" Oamaru Representative.)
Warned by the judge that it was unsafe to rely on the evidence of accomplices, the jury acquitted a Dunedin woman of grave charges concerning an alleged illegal operation on a 19-year-old Oamaru mill-girl.
Counsel for the defence described the chief witnesses for the Crown as "a pretty pair" of accomplices whose evidence was designed to shield themselves from the consequences of their part in the crime.
THE final curtain was rung down on the tragic death of a young woman at the Oamaru Public Hospital on December 5, when the jury at the Oamaru Supreme Court last week returned a verdict of not guilty on charges against Mary Jane Clark, of Dunedin, based on allegations of manslaughter in having caused the death of Jessie Elizabeth Smart by performing an illegal operation upon her at Dunedin on November 27, with having unlawfully used an instrument and with supplying an instrument for an unlawful purpose.
Sir William Sim occupied the bench. Lawyer A. G. Creagh conducted the prosecution, while Lawyer A. C. Hanlon appeared on behalf of the accused woman.
Lawyer Creagh outlined the case at some length on similar lines to that of the lower court hearing, reported in a recent issue of "N.Z. Truth."
He stated that Jessie Elizabeth Smart, a girl of 19, had been employed at the Oamaru Woollen Mills.
As the result of certain disclosures, it was alleged that a Mrs. Thorpe, a fellow employee, had arranged by telephone to take her to the house of Mrs. Clark in Maclaggen Street, Dunedin.
They went to Dunedin and it, was alleged that an operation had been performed in the house of Mrs. Clark, that the sum of £10 was paid by Mrs. Thorpe and that the girl Smart died at the Oamaru Public Hospital a few days later.
Mrs. Clark had denied all knowledge of the telephone call and of Mrs. Thorpe, but it would be shown that Mrs. Thorpe had previously met accused and had visited her house in Dunedin. ,
The chief witness for the Crown was Jane Ellen Thorpe, a widow residing in Thames Street, Oamaru, who gave evidence similar to that of the preliminary hearing.
Cross-examined by Lawyer Hanlon, witness admitted that she knew she was committing a very serious crime in taking the girl to Dunedin.
Serious Position
Lawyer Hanlon: Did you realize you were liable to a term of imprisonment if convicted? — Yes.
To whom did you make your first statement? — Senior-Sergeant Shanahan.
Is it correct to- say that you were made to realize the seriousness of your position? Did Sergeant Shanahan tell you it would be for your own good to tell all about it? — Yes.
How did Chilcott come into the matter? — I first met Chilcott at another woman's house. It was Jack Chilcott who gave me the £24. He knew it was for an illegal operation. The girl had evidently told him all about it.
Did Chilcott speak to you about the operation or did you speak to him? — The girl Smart and I met him on the street. He had the money in his pocket and handed it to me. Chilcott said: "That ought to be enough."
His Honor: It turned out to be more than enough? — Yes, I gave him £8 back.
Lawyer Hanlon: Don't you think he would remember it if you gave him £8 back? — He put it in his pocket.
John William Chilcott, confectioner, admitted that he had given Mrs. Thorpe £24 in notes. The girl Smart told him it was required for an operation.
Under cross-examination, Chilcott stated that he knew the operation would be illegal and that it would be a crime. He could not remember Mrs. Thorpe seeing him about the operation.
Lawyer Hanlon: Didn't Mrs. Thorpe see you and the money was discussed? — I don't know.
Was the amount of £24 spoken about before it was paid? — I can't remember which one first told me. It was a few days after the two women saw me that I handed over the money.
The senior-sergeant saw you and said: "You have got yourself into a pretty pickle with these women?" — When was this?
Lawyer Hanlon: "I am not here to answer questions!"
In reply to the bench,, witness stated that his evidence in the lower court was true. Evidence concerning the sending of a telephone message by Mrs. Thorpe to Mrs. Clark's number on November 22 was given by James George Curry and Charles Frederick Lavender, of the Postal Department.
Annie Connor, proprietress of the Leviathan Hotel, Dunedin; William Pickerill, porter, G. R. Hunter, service car driver, and Eva May Johnston also repeated their former evidence.
Detective William Roycroft described his visits to the house of the accused in Maclaggen Street, Dunedin.
Under cross-examination witness said that after a diligent search nothing was found that would connect accused/with the charges.
Medical evidence was given concerning the death of the girl Smart, the cause being acute peritonitis, the condition of which could have been produced by an illegal operation.
Lawyer Hanlon did not call any evidence for the defence. In his address to the jury, he stated that if a conviction were entered at all, it must be on the charge of manslaughter.
There was not a bit of evidence from the girl, who had died that could implicate Mrs. Clark.
Mrs. Thorpe's was the only evidence and she was an accomplice in law; in making her statements she was shielding herself' from the consequences of her crime.
Mrs. Thorpe engineered the business by taking the girl to Dunedin. It was quite possible that Mrs. Thorpe had operated herself, because it was she who received the money.
Counsel would not say that Mrs. Thorpe performed the operation, but he asked what was to prevent her from doing so?
According to her evidence, she took the girl to Dunedin, but either in Oamaru or Dunedin Mrs. Thorpe herself could have operated on the girl.
This was the woman on whom the Crown relied to sheet home the crime to Mrs. Clark. Could a woman have a greater motive for lying than Mrs. Thorpe — the desire to protect herself from a term of imprisonment for what she had done?
The witness Chilcott, who had been called to support Mrs. Thorpe, had also a motive and was equally an accomplice.
How did Chilcott and the girl get into touch with Mrs. Thorpe? Was it not because they knew she had a reputation?
It was quite plain that Chilcott was the man responsible for the girl's condition. If the difficulty could be surmounted, he would save himself from paying maintenance for sixteen years.
Chilcott admitted that he knew he ran the risk of going to gaol.
Lawyer Hanlon quoted the opinion of the English Court of Appeal concerning the danger of accepting the evidence of accomplices without corroboration and asked if the jury were prepared to accept the evidence of accomplices who were striving to save their own skins.
Was there a scrap of evidence; that bore out what Mrs. Thorpe had said? She stated that she telephoned to Dunedin, but nobody knew who answered that call.
There was no evidence whatever that she had a conversation with Mrs. Clark or anyone else in Dunedin.
The whole thing might have been a blind. It might have been true and it might have been a lie.
The description of the furniture in Mrs. Clark's house by Mrs. Thorpe, counsel said, was attributable to the fact that Mrs. Thorpe was there before, as she admitted having been there twice previously.
The police search revealed nothing. There was absolutely nothing in Mrs. Clark's house, to connect her with the crime.
Were the jury going to accept the evidence of Mrs. Thorpe, who gave evidence to shield herself, and Chilcott — "to make a pretty pair" — who had parted with £24?
The jury had only the evidence of these accomplices and it was their bounden duty to declare Mrs. Clark not guilty.
In directing the jury, his honor stated that it was reasonably clear an illegal operation had been performed on the girl, which resulted in her death.
Under the Crimes Act accused was liable to imprisonment for life if convicted of committing an illegal operation and to three years if convicted of supplying an instrument. If the accused were convicted at all, it should be on the charge of ' manslaughter.
The Crown relied entirely on the evidence of Mrs. Thorpe, who was in the position of an accomplice.
It could not be said that Mrs. Thorpe shielded herself on the evidence. There was nothing to prevent an information being laid against her to have her arraigned on a certain charge.
It seemed hardly likely that Mrs. Thorpe performed the operation herself. It seemed rather far-fetched to say that she would take the girl to Dunedin to perform the operation when they both lived in Oamaru.
A great deal of the evidence had not tended to corroborate the story of Mrs. Thorpe where it should be corroborated. Only two matters could be regarded in any way as corroborating her evidence.
Firstly, the evidence of the Post Office employees showed that Mrs. Thorpe had tried to be connected with the Dunedin number of Mrs. Clark on November 22. That was, at any rate, some slight corroboration of Mrs. Thorpe's evidence.
The other matter was Mrs. Clark's denial of all knowledge of Mrs. Thorpe, whose evidence that she knew Mrs. Clark was corroborated by that of Mrs. Johnston.
Her evidence, however, did not help to connect accused with the crime. It was unsafe for the jury to rely on the evidence of accomplices.
After a retirement of twenty minutes, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged. -NZ Truth, 15/3/1928.
The mention of the house in Maclaggan st is interesting, and a quick look at the army record of Walter Clark reveals that, on discharge, he intended to live at 85 Maclaggan st.
ALLEGED ABORTION
(Special to "The Evening Post.")
DUNEDIN 26th February.
A woman named Mary Jane Clark was arrested yesterday morning on a charge of attempted abortion. It is understood that the case has some connection with the charge heard against a young girl last week of abandoning her baby in the vicinity of Mrs. Clark's house. Accused appeared before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. The charge was of on 10th September unlawfully using an instrument on a female, with intent to procure a miscarriage.
Chief-Detective Cameron applied for a remand until Wednesday, 6th March.
His Worship: "Is that by consent?"
Mr. Cameron replied in the affirmative. Mr Hanlon was not present, but would be representing the accused. A remand was granted accordingly. Bail of £200 was allowed, with one surety of £200, or two sureties of £100 each. -Evening Post, 27/2/1929.
LEFT OUTSIDE GATE
Mystery of Little Waif Is Soon Solved by Police
DUNEDIN GIRL'S CRIME
(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Dunedin Representative).
Either shrinking from the shame of her ill-fated folly, or driven to desperation by the thought of how she was to carry the burden of her child, Pearl Caroline Hislop, an attractive-looking girl of twenty years, showed contempt for the bonds of motherhood by abandoning her newly-born babe near the gateway of a house in Anderson's Bay.
THE young mother has now faced justice, and her apprehension, it is understood, has also been responsible for a serious charge being preferred against a married woman living in the house, outside which the infant was found.
Not three weeks after Dunedin had been startled by the succession of discoveries of three dead infants within the bounds of the city, it was announced that a living newly-born child had been found at the back-gate of a house in Anderson's Bay Road.
A smart bit of work by Detective-sergeant Nuttall was responsible for the arrest of Pearl Caroline Hislop, a single girl, who had given birth to a child at the Salvation Army "Red Roofs" Maternity Home on January 28.
Brought before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at the city police court, the girl pleaded guilty to having, on the night of Wednesday, February 13, abandoned her female child near the residence of Mrs. Mary Jane Clark, of Anderson's Bay Road.
From the witness-box, Mrs. Clark said that at about 6.45 on the morning of February 14 she was attracted to her back gate by the sound of a baby crying.
On investigating she discovered a little baby dressed and wrapped in portion of a blanket. Having taken the infant inside and given it food, she notified the police.
Dr. Evans, who arrived on the scene with the police, stated that the child was well developed and weighed six and three-quarter pounds. The infant appeared to have been well cared for and was in a healthy state.
In the medical man's opinion the child was fully natural at birth and when he saw it, it was about fourteen days old. It was given over to the care of the Plunket Society's Home at Karitane.
Evidence of the accused girl having been treated at the "Red Roofs" Home, was given by Sister Christianson, of the Salvation Army. Sixteen days after the birth of the child, she said, the young mother left the home, taking the child with her.
It was about 8.30 in the evening when Hislop left, and she had remarked that she was going to some friends.
According to the evidence of Detective-sergeant Nuttall, the unfortunate girl, when interviewed, admitted that she had given birth to a child in the Home. On the night, of February 13, she told the detective she left the home and caught a late tram to Anderson's Bay.
Disembarking from the tram at the Bay View Hotel, the young mother walked about the streets for a few minutes before leaving her child near Mrs. Clark's gate, which faces on to the Portobello Road.
She then returned to the city and stayed the night with an aunt before leaving for Balclutha the next morning.
Remanded to the Supreme Court for sentence, Hislop later appeared before His Honor, Mr. Justice MacGregor.
Neatly-dressed, with a shaped sports-tweed overcoat closely turned up round her face, the girl kept her big dark eyes riveted on the front of the dock during the brief proceedings.
On her behalf, Mr. E. J. Anderson stated that she was the daughter of highly-respected parents, and, tiring of country life, she made for the city, where, unfortunately, she had made a false step.
Counsel suggested that the girl should be placed where environment would counteract the influence of that in which she had been living during the past year or so.
The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. F. B. Adams, drew his Honor's attention to the fact that the child had been out from 11 o'clock at night, and when found, its legs were cold.
On the assurance of Ensign Glover, that the girl would no doubt benefit if placed in the Salvation Army's charge, the prisoner was ordered to be detained in the home for a period of 12 months. -NZ Truth, 14/3/1929.
"Her Evidence Is Really Negligible; .. . Treat Her As Hostile"
AFTER two remands, Mary Jane Clark, a short, stoutish woman of middle age, neatly attired, was placed my the dock at the city police court to answer two serious charges.
It was alleged that on September 10, 1928, Clark made use of an instrument for the purpose of performing an illegal act on Pearl Caroline Hislop, and that on October 20, 1928, she committed a similar offence on Myrtle Eliza Duncan.
Mr. A. C. Hanlon acted for accused, and Chief-detective Cameron conducted the prosecution. Mr. C. J. White, instructed by Messrs. Stewart and Kelly, of Balclutha, was present in court to watch proceedings on behalf of a witness named Smith.
The bench's order for the court to be cleared removed a bunch of spectators, chiefly women, and at Mr. Hanlon's request, all witnesses were instructed to leave the court until called upon to give evidence.
A feature of the proceedings was the appearance as one of the chief witnesses of Pearl Caroline Hislop, a fashionably dressed, and attractive looking young brunette, who recently figured in the Supreme Court in connection with a charge of having abandoned her newly-born child outside the back-gate of' Mrs. Clark's stylish new bungalow situated at the junction of the Portobello and Anderson's Bay roads.
The girl conducted herself with absolute composure during her occupancy of the witness-box, and gave her evidence in a clear voice.
At present, she said, she was an inmate at the Salvation Army Home, having been ordered to be detained in the institution for a period of 12 months as a result of a conviction on a charge of abandoning her child.
On September 10 last, she arrived in Dunedin from Balclutha and was met at the station by Sydney George Smith. The couple went along to Club House, Moray Place, and there the girl booked a room.
Later in the day, she met the young man, and they proceeded by tram to a house in Anderson's Bay Road.
The house was of brick, said witness, and having knocked at the front door they saw Mrs. Clark, whom witness now recognised as accused.
The girl then described what she could remember of the furnishings and other appointments of the house.
"Accused asked me if I felt nervous and I said 'a little bit,'" she said.
The chief-detective: What happened then?
Miss Hislop: I went out of the room with Mrs. Clark. -NZ Truth, 21/3/1929.
Sadly, the "Truth" account of the trial, though fascinating, is incomplete.
"I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE WOMAN BEFORE"
Crown Witnesses Deny That Mrs, Clark Was The Visitor Who Called At Their house
ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL ON GRAVE CHARGE
(From" N.Z. Truth's" Special Dunedin Representative)
There was an unexpected turn of events during the Police Court evidence against Mrs. Mary Jane Clark, charged at Dunedin on two indictable offences, when two important Crown witnesses — mother and daughter — denied that the accused was the woman who had visited their home and allegedly performed an illegal act on the younger of the two women. Mr, J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., declared the mother a hostile witness, and the incident led to defending counsel punctuating the proceedings with frequent objections to the Crown's line of interrogation.
The alleged offence was then described by the girl. Returning to the sitting-room, she went on to allege, the two women joined Smith, and Mrs. Clark asked her visitors if they would care for a drink. They accepted, and whisky was brought to them. "I then saw Smith hand Mrs. Clark two £10 notes," declared the girl.
Mrs. Clark, she alleged, asked them to leave by the back gate, and instructed them to walk home, both requests being complied with.
The girl said she returned to her boarding-house, and remained there until .the following Monday. On January 26, she entered the Red Roofs' Maternity Home and two days later gave birth to a female child.
Describing himself as a wool-buyer of Balclutha, Sydney George Smith stated that he came to Dunedin on September 8, and booked in at the Gladstone Hotel.
The following, day, he said, he went along MacLaggan Street with the idea of finding Mrs. Clark's residence; it was disclosed, however, that the woman lived in Anderson's Bay Road.
Speaking of his first alleged visit to Mrs. Clark's dwelling, Smith said that when she opened the door he asked her if she was Mrs. Clark and she replied that she was.
"I told her that I had a girl friend who was in trouble, and asked her what she could do for her. She told me to bring her along the following day at 2 p.m., alleged Smith.
He then related his version of his visit with the girl Hislop, during the closing stages of which, he said, he asked Mrs. Clark "what the damage would be." She had replied "ten pounds," and he had handed her two £5 notes.
Evidence of a person by the name of Miss Hislop having booked in at the Club House was given by the proprietress, Jane Canning.
Shortly after Myrtle Eliza Duncan, a slightly-built young girl, had entered the witness-box, the chief-detective experienced some difficulty with regard to the girl's failure to identify the accused as the woman who had visited her home in connection with the alleged illegal act.
She was ordered to stand down, and her place in the box was taken by her mother, Jane Ella Duncan, a widow, residing in George Street. "I have never seen that woman before," declared Mrs. Duncan, indicating the accused in the dock.
Continuing, she said that about six or seven months ago, accompanied by her daughter, she visited a house in Anderson's Bay Road.
A woman opened the door and Mrs. Duncan asked if she was Mrs. Clark.
The Chief-detective: Who was the woman who opened the door to you?
Mrs. Duncan: I don't know.
Did she say who she was?
Mr. Hanlon objected to this question, and his objection was upheld by the magistrate.
Detective Cameron (to Mrs. Duncan): Did you go inside?
Mrs Duncan: I just stood inside the passage.
Did you have a talk with this woman? — yes.
Did you, some days later, see the same woman at your own home? — She was not anything like that woman there (indicating accused).
Mr. Bartholomew, (to Detective Cameron): You may treat this witness as hostile — it is obvious.
The police officer's resumption of interrogation was immediately attacked by defending counsel, who intimated that the detective was "bouncing" the witness.
Mrs. Duncan admitted that she had given a statement to Detective sergeant Nuttall which she had read over and signed as being the truth.
The statement referred to was produced and she identified her signature, after which the document was handed in.
The Chief-detective: Was your daughter ill after that woman visited your house?
Mrs. Duncan: No, not for a long time after.
Was she ill? — She had pains I called in a doctor to be on the safe side.
What did you go to this house in Anderson's Bay Road for?
At counsel's request the question was ruled out by the S.M.
Mrs. Duncan first denied that she had given the woman any money, but on being pressed, admitted that she handed her ten shillings.
Mr. Hanlon: Wait a minute, detective, who are you talking about — who is this woman you refer to? I object to taking statements about some woman who is not identified. Anything said about a woman who is not Mrs. Clark is not admissible against Mrs. Clark.
"In her evidence in chief she says it was not Mrs. Clark, yet, in her statement to the police, she says "it was Mrs Clark," observed the magistrate, in allowing the objection. "Her evidence is really negligible." The daughter was then recalled. Her earlier evidence was to the effect that, with her mother she visited a house in Anderson's Bay where they met a woman who was not like the woman ln the dock.
While at the house, the girl said she saw her mother give the other woman some money, but heard no conversation. About a week later the woman called at the Duncans's home in George Street.
She then proceeded to describe what happened when the woman visited her home in George Street.
Mr. Hanlon, however, objected or the grounds that Mrs. Clark had not been identified as that woman, and contended that the evidence was irrelevant.
Detective Cameron: Who was the woman who called at your home?
Miss Duncan: She said she was Mrs. Clark, but that is not the woman over there. (Indicating accused).
Asked by the police officer to describe the woman, the girl stated that she was of middle-age, stout and about a head taller than her own height
Medical Evidence
"Will you say what caused your illness?" was the next question of the Chief-detective, but on being warned by the magistrate that, she was not bound to answer, the girl declined to reply.
The evidence of Dr. W. H. Borrie was to the effect that he visited the girl Duncan on October 23 last, and on examination came to the conclusion that a particular physical change had removed a certain condition.
Detective-sergeant Nuttall related what occurred when, after certain inquiries, he visited accused on February 25 with the object, of arresting her.
To the reading of the warrant, Mrs. Clark had allegedly replied: — "Who was the girl?"
The detective said he had informed her that the girl concerned was the person who had left a newly-born child at accused's back-gate, and had been previously dealt with in the police court.
Clark, he added, then replied: "I don't know her. I have never seen her before in my life."
In connection with the second charge, the detective again called upon Mrs. Clark on February 28. To the warrant of arrest her alleged reply was: "I don't know about it."
With the remark that in the case of the girl Duncan there was really no evidence, and circumstances went to show that Mrs. Duncan was a "worthless" witness, Mr. 'Bartholomew threw out the second charge.
On the first information, Mrs. Clark was committed for trial, bail being allowed in self; £200, and one surety of a like amount, accused to report weekly to the police.
On leaving the court buildings, Mrs. Clark was escorted by a strong bodyguard of male and female friends, some of whom gave expression to their triumph in sheltering the woman from press photographers. -NZ Truth, 21/4/1929.
WOMAN ACQUITTED
VENOMOUS PROSECUTION
COMMENT IN DUNEDIN CASE
“It would not be unfair for me to say that in view of the evidence given this is a spiteful and venomous prosecution because this girl would not swear up to the briefs which the police held in another case. This is a thing that must be deprecated, and must not be allowed to be brought into our criminal law. It would be a sad thing for the law in New Zealand if this were allowed to go on.’’
So declared Mr. A. C. Hanlon in the Supreme Court at Dunedin, when Myrtle Eliza Duncan pleaded not guilty to a charge of permitting an instrument to be used on her with the intent of procuring a miscarriage, and alternatively with using an instrument on about October 20, 1928. Mr. Hanlon appeared for accused.
After a brief retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
"The case is one of a well-known class,” said the Crown Prosecutor. “Two full statements were made to the police by accused following her illness. At that time no prosecution was thought of, but later events had brought about the charges. It was for the jury to decide whether her full confessions .were false or true. Further, they would have to look for some further corroboration. Corroboration was not altogether necessary, as there could be a conviction on the evidence contained in the girl’s confession. In this case they were not the least concerned with the person, if such person were responsible, who committed the act on the girl.”
Detective-Sergeant Nuttall gave details of an interview in company with the police matron with the accused at her home. Accused denied that an illegal operation had been carried out by a Mrs. Clark. In addressing the jury, Mr. Hanlon first paid a tribute to the fair way in which the Crown Prosecutor had opened the case. He agreed with the assertion that the case was of a somewhat curious nature, as it was based on an alleged confession by a girl of her own guilt. There was no question of sentiment but of justice to decide whether the girl was guilty or not. It was known that people had made incriminating statements that were absolutely false in some cases. “Looking at the circumstances of the case,” continued Mr. Hanlon, “I say that it is perfectly plain that this prosecution would never have been lodged if the police had been able to obtain evidence from the girl to convict another person on a charge of using an instrument upon her. The girl was never warned that if she made a statement she might be incriminating herself and that it might be used against her. If you think that such a course is proper and that the prosecution is genuine, convict her; but it is quite plain that it does not look a genuine prosecution and you are not going to lend yourselves to one which, to put it mildly, is spiteful and venomous.”
Summing up, His Honor said there was no evidence to convict accused on the second count. The first count, however, would need their serious consideration. The question to decide was “How was the miscarriage brought about?” the rule was that when the police had decided to arrest a person no statement could be taken without the person interrogated being warned. The propriety of the questioning did not enter into this case. The sole question was whether an operation had been carried out. The jury had to decide whether the girl’s actions, first a denial and then a confession, were natural.
The jury retired at 11.40 a.m. and returned at noon with a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged. Later in the day Mary Jane Clark was charged that on September 10 she used an instrument on Pearl Caroline Hislop with intent to procure a miscarriage. A second count was of supplying an instrument knowing the same was to be unlawfully used to procure a miscarriage.
Evidence was called, and after retirement of 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. -Poverty Bay Herald, 3/5/1929.
DEATHS
CLARK. — On July 10, 1944 (suddenly), at her granddaughter's residence (Mrs Moore, 5 Prospect Bank, Wakari), Mary Jane Clark, of 570 Anderson's Bay road, beloved mother of Gladys, Arthur, end Walter. R.I.P. Requiem Mass at St. Patricks Basilica, South Dunedin, on Wednesday, the 12th inst., at 8.30 a.m. Private interment.
— Hugh Gourley Ltd., funeral directors. -Evening Star, 10/7/1944.
No comments:
Post a Comment