Royal Army' Medical Corps, was the frst: witness to be called when the Court opened at 10 am, Under exams Jnation-in-chiot by "Me, Priestwood he said that he attended ites. MeCorry a professional capacity" at about 930 pin, on Janua'y 17, a her house the British Infantry Barracks, and then went on to ive medica! evidence ding 'Mrs, 'MeGarry's condition and what transpired during his vist. He also. testified to attending, rofesslonally, Mrs, Plaskelt on' Feb-Tuary'®, diso at the Brilsh Tnfentey Barracks, and Yo. subsequent events:
Caplin R.A. Stephen, of the Roys! Army Medical" Corps, Was the next witness. "The greater part of "his examination-in-thief was devoted to 'Questions of a medical nature, and in Tegard fo. the "questions he' put. to Mrs, 'Plaskelt shortly atten she had been delivered of a child at the Victoria Nursing Home, he said. that hho-questioned her in the interests of her own health, so. that he would continue treatment, Something' danferous might have been breving, and the questioned her ay a doctor.
Afternoon Sestfon tr, Kent having indicated that he was calling. "no. witnesses for the defence, the "Crown "Advocate, Int. Victor" Priestwood, rose to" ads dress' the Court when it resumed at°28 pin, Regarding the dist charge against ivy" Plaskes, he said that' the first, thing the jury must consider was "was Ivy Plaskett with, child on January 16," and the answer, unless they violated their consciences, was yes, she was, The jury must ask themselves who was the father of the child, "Unfortunately it was not her husband and consequently she was anxious to get rid of the child. Now! that beng the case, what did she do. She took counsel with Mra. Soar and confided in her what she had been doing. She said she had been taking salts, That in itself, counsel submit-fed," was enough unless the Jury Wanted to do violence to their reason, This was realised to be inadequate. Mrs, Soar had a certain amount of medical knowledge. She had been nurse and it was she who suggested more efficacious means when emetics failed.
Mr. Priestwood then dwelt on the instrument, the syringe, and touched fu the statements of the accused. The truth which peeped out from these statements, he submitted, was not the result of questions put to the accused by Inspector 'Botham. Inspector hind only ear-Tightfdl and proper in interrogating the people ned by Mrs, Soar, The jury must remember that these] women were not children, 'They all had children and that being so. they' knew the course of nature in. these matters. He submitted that the prosecution had not put into the box any witness who had the slightest possible grounds for giving evidence which was untrue. They had, of course, to make allowances for human fallibility, "He submitted in all earn-cestness that Inspector Botham did not treat these women harshly and did tot seek to make them make incriminating statements, His object was to elucidate the charges, The police station was not, could! not be, a restaurant, a hospital or a health resort, Mr. Botham had other urgent matters 10° deal with than to attend women who abort children. He suggested that the women were treated with the same kindness. "as you or I would have treated them. The statements taken from the accused, he continued, were corroborated by medical evidence. The jury could not disbelieve the medical evidence. He seriously suggested that hho had never seen in the witness box medical witness upon whom he} could place more credence, more be-
Stephen appeared to him a man who, Het, than Captain Stephen. "Captain In addition to his high degrees, had that sense of discipline which the Army imposed, and who was, more~ over, a Scot who knew the value of words, The jury could have no doubt that two of the accused were with child and both wished to get rid of the! children, and he submitted that they could have no doubt that both had! taken active measures to get rid of the children." Only one thing. remained. What measures, did they; take? "There had been salts, calomel) and hot baths, They realised that these measures were not suiMelent and took others.
in conclusion, counsel for the prosecution said that if the Jury were true to their oath they had no alternative but to bring in a verdict of gullly on the charges as framed, Mr, Kent's Argument In commencing his argument Mr, ent "dealt "with "the, question of fo evidence to show that Mis. Me-city, holding that w
Garry and Mrs, Plaskett were guilty of complicity, 'The women were friends and what was more natural' that friends "should be with each other when either one was il. He submitted that the charges of compllelty against Mrs. MeGarry and Mrs. Plaskett be dismissed.
Mr. Kent then produced the instru ment used by the accused and dwelt fu the relevant evidence of Captain Stephen and the evidence of the latter's questioning of Mrs. Plaskett at the Victoria Nursing Home. His Tearned friend had complimented Captain Stephen on the way in which he had given his evidence and he (ite. Kent) had no reason to dis-orage the witness. The fact remained, however, that Copiain Ste-Phon had interrogated Mrs. Plaskelt at the Victoria Nursing Home three hows before she gave birth to her child and once again about one hour afler. He had told the Court how he pressed her and how she had burst into tears and wiped her eyes on the edge of the sheet. He wished the jury to consider her statements the light of the circumstances in Which they were given, Regarding the " statement taken from Mrs. Soar, Inspector "Botham was not prepared to deny that fold her it would be better for her if she spoke the truth. He might have said those words. Or he might not. Mrs, McGarry was not under arrest when she made her statement. She was invited to go to the police station. She arrived there at about 530' pin. and stayed for about five hours. Inspector Botham was busy with other matters when she got them. He referred to the three ac-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.