Trial of Madame Restell, alias Ann Lohman, for abortion and causing the death of Mrs. Purdy : being a full account of all the proceedings on the trial, together with the suppressed evidence and editorial remarks.
- Madame Restell
- Date:
- 1841
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Trial of Madame Restell, alias Ann Lohman, for abortion and causing the death of Mrs. Purdy : being a full account of all the proceedings on the trial, together with the suppressed evidence and editorial remarks. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)
18/28
![*o support of the indictment, offers to read the deposition ot Ann Maria Purdy, taken before Justice Merritt, a Police Magistrate, on the 22d of March, 1841, upou which a warrant was issued against the accused. To sustain the right to introduce the deposition in evidence on the trial of this indictment, Mr. Merritt testified, that he took the deposition of Mrs. Purdy on the day that it purports to have been sworn to ; that the accused was present and heard the depo- sition read over to the deponent, and that she was inquired of by the Magistrate if she desired to cross-examine the witness; and that she availed herself of the opportunity of propounding some questions. Purdy, late the husband of the deponent, testified to the death of Mrs. Purdy on the 28th day of April last. It was alsoproved on the part of the accused, that the Magis- trate omitted to insert in the deposition, or annex to it, certain questions put by the accused to Mrs. Purdy, and her answers to these questions, he alleging that he did not deem them material, and that they had been substantially answered in the deposition previously taken. The question that is presented by the argument is :—Is this deposition thus taken, admissible in evidence on the trial of this cause ? The statute (2 R. S. 590) clearly defines the course to be pursued by the committing Magistrate. The 2d section provides, that whenever complaint shall be made to any such Magistrate, that a criminal offence has been committed, it shall be the duty of such Magistrate to examine, on oath, the complainant, and any witnesses who may be produ- ced by him; and the 19th section of the act requires that the evidence given by the several witnesses examined shall be re- duced to writing, and signed by the witnesses respectively. The 3d section'directs, that if it shall appear trom such exami- nation that any criminal offence has been committed, a warrant, &c. shall be issued, &c. This appears to be a preliminary proceeding, designed, as well to satisfy the Magistrate of the actual commission of an offence, as also to afford redress to the accused, when the com- plaint shall prove to be groundless or malicious. It is a proposition too clear to admit of discussion at this ad- vanced period of legal science, and when the rights of the accu. sed are guarded with scrupulous care, that a mere preliminary exparte deposition, taken without affording to the accused an op- portunity of confronting and cross-examining the witness, can- not be read upon the trial. It has, indeed, been held in England, that a deposition taken before a Coroner's Jury, though in the absence of the accused, was admissible in evidence.—[Barb. p. 368, 3 T. R. 713—Bull N. P. 242.] But, says Barbour, this doctrine has been questioned by several writers of eminence, and it seems to be the better opin- ion, that exparte depositions ought to be excluded altogether as evidence against the accused. 'I hat the depositions taken exparte before the Coroner .vere ad-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21150096_0018.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
