Novailam~=1ec192rr~~ i

flémfatfiwl/sfic .

Because “TurhbulPl” 34150475

'- honest value. ‘t/‘litoteglezgeattzreru

ou ex ct to in un - -

l {veariomfortable fit, high-

grade materials, exceptional

w .. l'l¢.9"“YQ!l- will. 5nd

in Turnbull’s Knitted Under-

" wear. At all dealers in dif-

7 , fei-ent styles, weights and like for everybody.

.~;.Mede .i».-€e2¢d.¢ by THE c. TURNBULL co. or GALT, no.

ii/ia/[Qeauty Yiglfecff/cta/f/z

Natural beauty is more than "skin

deep." lt is the outward evidence of alsound body, nglow with health and

vigor. Perfect health is a matter of perfect nourishment, and in Qlajen you have the finest tonic and body builder yet discovered. Oiajen is the only pre- paration in the world that supplies in . pleasant, easily assimilated form, these

essential elements to the blood: Iron, Sodium. Calcium, Lecithin and rPofassium.

ll you are "run down" or below par in any way, get-a jar of Olajen from your dru gist, and begin building a new healtlliy body to-day.

rzmillllfii llllnini... ‘til’. l “if:

Tli difficulty oi nbsorpt‘ l Calcium by the humanllarddll’ h" "UNI been overcome. ln Ola n this life-giving min.

era is Presented‘ in such a form that ll. is immediately asihnilated _into _e bl

with miraculous

Sold by till Jruggisls

“OLAJEN LIMITED ~27 Front St. East, Toronto

. . Philadelphia, have been made by Mi‘. Luden, who is president of the company.

Last year the company's plant

How a Candy here turned out 20,000,000 pounds of confections, including cough

READING, Pa“, Nov. 14. —Devel- drops and had 1,000 employees on its oping ptcandy business from a small pgymol, . Mr. Lilden, in making the Kitchen in his mother's home fllty- announcement, said he intends to four years ago to assets of betweenretire early in 1028. $5.000 and 87.00011“! William K- Mr. Luden came into prominence jhllde is to retire from active mull-several years ago when he offered a litment of the William" H. Ludem$350 yearly bonus to all employees 1116.. cough drop antimI-hdy Ilbhlld of his plant who kept their children factutets. in school after they reached 14

Announcement of arransemflllls years ofiage. His offer was prompt- lor a transfer of Ludon‘s swrili wed because he believed there were Dtnielyw. Dietrich, assistant tress-not enough pupils in the high llrer and a__lar e stockholder of thescliools and too many in colleges. Freihefer . Ba Company. 0111c is 60 years old.

1. Montreal Tramways 1 . [Qompany

5% General and Refunding, i-Mortgaga Bonds ». Duo ‘April 1, i038

Princi and semi-annual ' at (April l and Octobfl l)

payabe in gold in’ Montreal, New York or lx-mdon. Elli; "

Coupon bondauln denomination of G100. $5Ql Ind $10M -' ' vulnerable-i to principal only.

'. l . ' Tirol-street railwaykbiisineaa of Montreal, which is owned and controlled by the Montreglffrarnwflw Company,‘ has been jin. suecelsfuleperation f0!‘ more than sixty .~years. Steady and 81111716 revenues are assured the Company through thfi Profit-sharing contractuwith the‘ City of Montreal, which has been ratified byfseglslative Act of the Province of Quebec. V.

Prion OI and to yield about 8.14% (aiiaicetpptuinieuiiteengefiipi-ice)

.1 The “National filly Company ‘ Hus Oflioe-St. ...‘...'. if: st. int» Sunder-Montreal m Ian Qtrllomxidlllog 1| Bugger-gonna

-, .. n, ' 10in. t-i iv. 1| '6 w»

- o. 102 -not done, but her father drove hcrlthe charge. (a) that i to the station, and no one accom- supplied or procured

l .

l

,had got her into trouble. She told ’the Doctor she could not do so in

15""

'_ o. A. MacDONALll

(Continued from Page 1.)

.1. I ’

. .. I .1. .... i. i... .l Lesson No. 5 ' I

Question: Why should

I

ed in Dr. Bovyer, who suggested thatl her illness was owing to pregnancy. fihe then left Hampton and came to Charlottetown. '

A girl answering ‘her description consulted Dr. J. B. Jenkins, saying she was in trouble and wanted to know if he could help her out. Dr.

man."

conviction. The following

the trial Judge: Beth was pregnant. February. 1927.

3 That the

strain ol the study-period and morning on the train between Char- girl on who he f d th . . . . m p" on“ e alsoprotects with its vitamins. few days afterwards, that is on Jan- seem to establish thefact that after We next find her at the Lennox seen crosing from Tormentine to Kenneth McBeth, Jessie McBeth‘s went to bed and that she was “flow- 2nd.

one day.

school children receive emul- sified cod-liver oil? a Jenkins told her he could not‘ and advised her to marry the party. Dr. lottetown and Borden. He thinks Pia 8mm‘! use’ u PM‘??? that this girl was Jessie McBeth, an emulsified liver oil autopsy. A th M I r ur c nnls deposed that he Mothenknow the value o‘ uary 28th, and saw her again the PS same clay on the beat between Tor-. consulting Dr. Jenkins and finding he would not do anything for her, Hotel, where she arrived on the ev- ening or night of January 28th, that Borden. Mrs. McMillan‘, the prop- rietress, says she remained at the father, says that Jessie arrived at his home in Bellevue about the last ing," that she had medicine with her when she came home and that On the 14th of February, about two weeks after his daughter came

Answer! Because the Jenkins also saw this girl the next and there was a resemblance to the not Ody provides eneygy but saw Jessie McBeth at Sackville a mentlne and Borden. This would. she took a trip to New Brunswick. ls the evening of the day she was Lennox about four- days. days of January. He says thatshe he saw her swallowing ‘some pills home, the father, Kenneth McBeth,

May 2nd April 30th and May 14th. 5 That the evidence

complished by.the drugs she took. 6 That

He found Jessie vomiting and diag- nosed the case as one of pregnancy. He says there was no growth notice- able. He said nothing about henthat caused her death. condition either to her or to her parents on this first visit, but gave drugs to bring on a miscarriage. her medicine, bismuth powders and’ also a mixture of bismuth and soda were XIOXiOHS- bicarbonate, and on the 17th of Feb- ruary he gave her tablets containing deleterious effect on her health, menthol and carbolicacid, and on rendering her pale and weak, nec- March 5th he gave the father, for essitating her being confined to her her, bismuth and magnesium carbon, bed very frequently during Febru- also menthol tablets and carbolic ary, March and April and causing tablets and a-box of cathartic pills. at frequent intervals much blood It would appear from Dr. Martin's flowing.

evidence that Jessie's father came l0 That the accused's connection to sec him a number of times, re- with supplying her with drugs has porting onfher condition and getting been established.

medicine for her, and this continued .until April, 14th when he made a the charge.

jpersonal visit and an examination. As to the first finding it may be

.He says‘ that from the reports of th" said it is in accord with the evi-

'flooding he thought it might be a dence to this extent that the evi- I case of abortion but found on exam- dence shows that during all the linatlon that it was not. He says time from August, 1926, when de- that she had been flooding for six ceased went to teach in Hampton or seven weeks and he thought the until the end the accused appears ;best way to end this was by ending to have showed her marked atten- the pregnancy, and he accordingly ‘ion and‘ to have been on terms of prescribed thirty drops of ergot to growing intimacy, but whether that be taken three times a day. iintimacy extended to illicit rela- On the 18th of April he stopped tions resulting in her pregnancy or treating her because of information not there is no direct evidence to lhe got from the father. Op April show, nor is ‘the circumstantial evi- ]26th Dr. Martin called to see Kcn- dence conclusive, nor is is necessary Ineth McBeth, who was ill. l-ie saw to be proven as a fact in order to Jessie but made no examination. support the charge rior wouldthe I nor did he give her any treatment. fact if proven go further than sup- ‘He arranged with the mother thatply a possible motive. ‘- jJessie should go to the Hospital. He} Such of the other findings as are, Ysaid that he WWII! telephone Dr-imatcrial and relevant will be con- Jenkins to meet her at the station, sidered in due course. but for the reasons given this was.‘ Considering the first factor in the accused. s. drug (or: panied her to Charlottetown. other thing) for Jessie McBeth for 0n the 23th APYll DT- 5- R- Jellfithe criminal purpose alleged: What kins examined her in the Hospitallis the evidence? and told her she was pregnant, that; I can find none in the Record to, he 0011111111? d0 Bllyllllllk‘ for her andsupport it unless it is to be found; advised he!‘ l0 many llle mall Wh0'in the testimony of Kenneth Mc-| Beth hereinafter particularly refer- red to. There is abundant evidence to’ support the trial Judge's finding that deceased "had been taking drugs or pills since early in Febru- ary (1927) and even before that date." Dr. Martin says he gave her bis- muth powders, bismuth soda bicar- bonate. menthol and carbolic acid. also bismuth and magnesium car- bon, cathartic pills and lastly ergot. As to these drugs the Doctor does not say whether he administered them himself of merely prescribed and left them for her to take. As. the medicine was. to be taken M stated periods in certain quantities it is not to be presumed that he

After Operation Vinol Brings Strength

"I was weak and Tim-down after an operation. The first bottle of Vinol showed good effects and now 1 3min splendid health."—— M“, g Wagar. You'll begin to feel stronger, eat and sleep better. the ‘FPRST week you take this simple, strengthening iron and cod ‘Iver compound. Flor ovcr 25 years. inol has helped run~down “o- uen, tired men and sickly children- liughea Drug C0.. Ltd.

her then condition. She had no hemerrhages whilst 1n the Hospital except on the 29th, when she had a slight one. Dr. Jenkins gave her no treatment except rest in bed. She was discharged from the Hospital on the 30th April. »

After leaving the Hospital she wentto Shediac where she arrived on May 2nd, and according to the evidence of Dr. Oulwn she had pre- viously had a miscarriage. 1f Dr. Oultonls to be believed. and his evi- dence is uncontradicted. the mis- carriage must have taken place be- tween April 30th, when she was dis- charged from, the Hospital, and May 2nd, when she arrived at his oflice. '

After being treated by Dr. Oulton in Shediac she was admitted i0 the Hospital in Moncton on May 14th. vhere she died on May 20th. from vhat was diagnosed as “sepsis fol- ewlng childbirth, with pneumonia.

On the 30th day of May, 1927, in- ‘armation was laid by Kenneth Mc-

cth of Bellevue charging the ap- iellant herein with the offence for Yhieh he was tried. '

The trial Judge in comnllflfllfie Yith a notice given him undemB. 020 of the Criminal Code anclfiules .f this Court made thereunder fur- ished a written report purporting a set forth his "Reasons for Judg- ient," which may how be consid-

<

ggygmyqooooooosoooooaq

He s iiide. ll to a conclusion in this yn‘ pgu-gy me thus:

to oie 8on0

"The charge against the accused zas been framed from Sec. 305. "The onus is on the Crown to

wove (a) That the accused supplied or procured a drug for Jessie Mc- ‘seth. (b) That the drug was noxi- ms. and (c) knowledge on the Pa" ~f the accused that it was intended ‘o be unlawfully used with intent to irocilre the miscarriage of the wo-

‘CO

Chaped Hands

Mixed with sweet oil and ap- plied oflen, Minsrd’: will heall rough and chnplfld Bllln- l

"MWARUS *

OLD MAN WINTER

THE CORNER

Order your Coal now and be pre- pared.

Phone Ill today.

W. D. GILLIS & C0.

This is substantially an accurate statement of what the Crown would have to prove in order to secure a

may be collected from the Report as the findings of

1 That the accused was the fath- er of the child of which Jessie Mc-

2 That Jessie McBeth had been taking drugs or pills since early in

miscarriage took place between April 30th and May

4 If not between April 30th and then certainly . between

does not ‘justify the finding nor does he be- called in Dr. Martin, of Grand Viewylieve that the miscarriage was ric-

the evidence does not tell who performed the miscarriage

'1 That the deceased was taking 8 That the drugs supplied her 9 That these were having a most

l 11 That the accused is guilty of

IS RIGHT AROUND

stayed and saw that she took the doses as directed. Whether she followed instructions and tool: the doses as prescribed or in larger and mil"? Powerful doses we have no means of telling.

The father says that when Jessie came home she had medicine iindc Dills. What they were and where she Bot them we are left in the dark.

That she had am le o rtunit °l Bellini! drugs for 2181161131“, there l: 11° question. She could have pro- cured them in Charlottetown before she went home. What her pur- Dose was in crossing over to New Brunswick in January we can only fiflnlectui-e. but there she also had the °l>ll0rtunity of procuring drugs. What these drugs were and wheth- er noxious or otherwise the evi- dence does not disclose. f

Considering next the second facti or of the charge, viz: (b) "That the drug or other things was noxious." What evidence is there to support the trial Judge's finding? _. .

The only noxious drugs shown by the evidence to have been supplied to the deceased were given by a physician of excellent reputation for the purpose as he alleges of sav- lnB his patients life.- The evidence of Kenneth McBeth has no applic- ation to this point for he made no charge that the drug supplied was noxious. i

The trial Judge thus deals with this question. He says: “Was the drug supplied noxious? The evi-. dence disclosed that the girl was. taking drugs to bring on a miscar- riage, that these were having a most deleterious effect on her health, rendering her pale and weak, nec- essitating her being confined to her bed very frequently during Febru- ary. March and April and causing at frequent intervals much blood '

the PLUG;

you pay for.

flowing."

Now that is the evidence upon which he found that some drug o" other noxious thing was responsible for the condition. That may be so in whole or in part. There were drugs enough in evidence to have procured serious disturbance in th functioning of any human bod and there were practically unlimit ed possibilities of unknown drug being procured and used. Again that experienced physician, D‘ Martin, on whose evidence the tria Judge so much relies, said that th “flowing" which was the sympton" which evidently caused him mos-

veiliept to carry.

4

PLUQ is the Best

ChewlngTobacco ‘is put up in many ways, butftherefia no other shape to equal-

BIG iBEN,» ,l>LUG is pressed so firmly that it luafuujsfresh and moist. It UOQB-HIIIOI dry nut, so will not chip or

TIeirq-is no waste; you enjoy all the

83 ‘.18

Tbéiljlug fits every pocket; it is so con-

~ \

\'\.

b‘. x‘ \\

And your dealer sells BIG BEN PLUGS right from the Vacuum (alr- tight) Tin, which keeps the tobacco in tho

me prime condition » when packed at tho

factory.

BIG BEN

PLUG Chewing Tobacco

y

concern may occur without an known cause, and in this he i strongly supported by the othe ‘leading Medical men who testifie in this case.

In the face of this testimony hm- could any Court or Jury conclud ‘with that degree of certainty whic‘ the law requires that the illnes was caused by the drugs she tool- .other than the drugs which wer ‘administered by her doctor for th . express purpose of bringing on r miscarriage because he believed th-i it was necessary in order to so." her life?

But even assuming that the ill ness of the deceased was caused b' the drugs she took, which may havr been the case, what was the drug or other thing, that was doing th: harm?

Without ascertaining _this fact it is impossible to connect the drug or noxious thing writ!" the accuser‘ r." with any persor ' a

It appears from the "Reasons for Judgment" that at the trial appel- lant's counsel urged that “it was a serious flaw in the case for the prosecution thatthe evidence failed to disclose the name of the drug given to effect the miscarriage." The trial Judge took a different view, and he says: "Is this neces- sary?” "The indictment in the case of Reg. v. Isaacs, 9 Cox C.C. 228, to the form of which no objec- tion was made, charged that the accused supplied ‘a large quantity of a noxious thing to the jurors un- known.’ "

On this crucial point there can be no doubt that the counsel was sub- stantially rlght. ~ The Grand Jury may properly bring in a bill of in- dlctment as in Reg. v. Isaacs charg- ing the supplying, dzc, of a noxious thing to "the jurors unknown," but the Petlt Jury or a County Court Judge or Magistrate trying the case under the Speedy Trials part of the. Criminal Code, as in the present‘ instance, must learn from the -.dv'l’-‘._ dance what the drug bathing was? before being able ‘to ‘determine whether it was harmless or noxious in its nature. frhis-gis self-evident. By confusing thckyliarge contained in the billet lnductment, with the evidence "necessary to prove the charge on the trial, the trial Judge has‘ interpreted Reg. v. lsnacs a. meaning the exact reverse of what it actually decides, and thus on this an essential element in the case. has misdirected himself strangely. For in that very case which he cites it was shown clearly what the "thing" was-a dark liquid alleged to be noxious contained in several bottles but which on analysis was :hown to be harmless. That case, unanimously decided on Appeal be- fore a bench of six distinguished Judges. is a leading authority for he principle that the drug or othe" thing intended by the statute must be noxious in its nature. The name ‘is not material but tlic "thins" must be proved.

In the other case cited by the trial Judge, viz: .The Queen v. Cramp. 5 Q.B.D. 307, the noxious

alnistered a "noxious thing." Atythc close of the hearing leave was; given by the Court to the ‘rtmn Counsel to sumbit any cases "owing where a conviction had fie! been made on such a charge "s! the present without proof of the iqtity of the drug or other thing "alleged to have been supplied by ‘re accused and the following cases Iene handed in: (l) R. v. Hollis. ‘l ‘Cox C.C. 463, (2) R. v. Scott, l’) lan. C.C. 370, (3) R. v. Pettlbon: nd R. v. Duffy, 15 E. 8c E. Dig. 836. 0n examining these cases it ap- oeared that the drug or thing used mes specifically indicated by the iviclenc-e and in every case, in which the evidence is shown, was proved (icbe noxious. tConsidering further the “Reasons for Judgment" I have found it ex- medingly difficult to follow the reasoning of the trial Judge to the major conclusions at which he ar- rived. ; He says: "Does the evidence of; Hugh McLeod and Kenneth Mc- Beth giving an account oi certain charges made by each of them against the accused but respecting

n-qaulidilto-npw

Inning-membranous!!!"

~Jessie had told you.

—’ _ _ ,_ ruinous that makes the drugso ad- which he was silent admit of the lw-l- nn-esumpilon that the charges were

true?" . And lie thus answer- wrs the question: "In a serious “barge such as exists here if this "were the only evidence against the "accused I would be inclined to “place little value upon it." He “then prmceds: What is the other "evidence? Wi \. Kenneth Mc- "l‘c'h was relating the conservat- “ion he had in his own house with