Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-04-26

| an Saturday. Gppn Msfscn ~ Az
tsr,ey rsf1zsssis on erssaa Of Ia
sufficient Evidences - oxher Cases
10 fer Sentences
The jury IL the Superior enar+ Sat
ardar morning returned q verdict CT
not gua-k by d1recf1on IT the
court IN the ease Of STATE rs DR.
Eevard e Houper Of w17sscw- in
! dsrted fur nanzsaaghrsr N causing
the death Of Mss Eernice 6. Round !
! Of Clinton ar means IF IN alleged
Issgaz operation ard DR. Hooper was
discharged
When court convened SaEurl H
f1re and Ar1araey Genera William
r Fa1rangal af this city. counsel
fay DR. Hooper. asked that the esrr-
direct verdict af not guilty IN the
ground Of insufficient evidence.
Judge Became addressed the 1ur1rs
as fsIEows.
Since you le@ gnt7enen. there
has been \ molten made 5E counsel
fer respondent II this MATER -naT
| ths court shgasd direct q verdict N
favor sf 1as respondent. a verdict u
not ga5lEr
II is the 5Ht- If TIE entir-t z t.e
court believes that the varfsct could
not be maintained upon the testimony
which has BEEN presented. u 5t-ect 4
verdict
In this matter the respondent Is
charged with Ransiaagnrer. 3rrnlga-
rary, end E-~n the evidence I ga1s-
ST through an abortion. rs IRE state
claims. performed uocn thss w1raa.
Mss R5undy
II IS the 9utr Of he count at
uar1sy, state afseial. u inquire
-1ro every alleged crime ws.hi- IT'S
jurisdiction II The turv Of The
county attorney % Present a. the
evidence that he ian gather 10 Tire
grand jury That ts an sxpa-vv
herring. t41e respondent i not repre-
sencaG before the grand jury -rere
IS 10 explanation II the respondent :
position. there IS no explanation II
The testimony Eve- by the Witnesses
for TIE stare before me grand +v-v
In tbs ease, rpun ne testimony
Ehich vas furnished t-e grand jury
II the county officials. they returned
Al -Gscmarr under r1-ee -ouars
One U16rr rse srarzra for ra--
slaughter. AID ere -rde- another sec
Cun %cr abortion. N procuring an
abortion Then -te MATER Is pre-
sentAG - the t-ave-se jury for their
examination consideration and de-
-ar-lla -pr-
Tire respondent Il This case aad
evE-v ether criminal ra-ar a.
! though Indicted = surrounded ry a
cloak Under oJ- law. VIII ne pre-
sICPr1un thai be Is innocent UaI
testimony Is introduced 5v the State
which ennTi1ces ssca one OF you :.
nen beyond a reasonable Doubt 81
tire guilt Of the responder q ire
charges = the indictment
Thai IS Il presumption OF AN lAa-
uaSJ not he overlooked There -
another rue Of Iaw. applicable Toy
only ~ tbs case but 70 every sgrheg
ct-H- criminal -aT-sr present. 70 a
Traverse Jury --a1 they must be
convinced Beyond reasonable COY, II
IF ne gull 0f the respondent By tn=
testimony -aat they Fare heard Il
ms casa IN have . be convinced
5evCrG j reasonable Doubt Of az tht
essentials, n tle trs- place ~
-ae-~ vas at operation performed
EpOu ti-ss Rcu1dy gzrl. and ma :
vas perf1r--1ei. hv Ur Hooper w;re,
- any -g1- Ter 11Ge- cer-z-, con-
1lg3n-s re physician has -1Enr "a
Qe-+gr-z TIA operation. Ard tra-
-hss was r--e---t11ly performed. I'll;
-kar because e TINS aT9e~a-lCn ma
ar - tl-s -esponc;ent -2zs - Bed
You heard the asst zyory Z Ia
Witnesses .Ur me STATE Il mis- ma
-, A1d So far as I remember. -ne
e12F testimony offered ex ne gov
er-ment connecting L'r. Hooper or
his act wf-, ne 2Cun=v g:tl came
from Mrs.. SpagsG1rC. ve-v Eooe-as-
bearing witness gp0n The stand Ear
testimony was admitted Under IRE
objection, Of counsel -or respondent
aG--lssafsls = nv nine, ami there
fore presented r. vrr tcr vau- e-r-
/ sics,a-1or- the statement ~ NJ
i SpazEcirg as ID wraT re acc-5~ -5-l
sa3e re he- before gci,g ID Or Eoep-
~. alsa her statement t3sat she -7zt
me EeUndy CIR. n WatervzEls or the
1sta u November aF-e- her r-.p. Il
she SAYS. - Or. Hooper Tia. t-st.-
1ouv was Admired for tte purpose
OF showing thE mind or purpose O.
me Rouney g1ri. II could not pc
2se1 as 11recr evidence n the actua
fart CT what the doctor did. m. \
was 70 siacw the purpose Of me
RoEndE girl and was on3x a9Er.-ts..
for that purpose:
= d0 ner think. gentlemen. and :
4 take the responsibility upon 1--seif
/ do not Laina Tisar under TIE test
1as1y WHICH y@u have heard from tie
! goVsrEE1e-r- n and Of itself With
cut a r.rT strong st-prcnsar 60
Imagination. voa would be warrant
ed Ii returning a verdict ef E-,,1-v
against this respondent Again. N
/ defense. tt,e respondent. VINO 3 -,.r
0E-v person VINO CIT aasol7z- ~
/ know. denies that he ever performed
/ any operation upon ne girl. or raar