Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MURDER ALLEGED

COOPERS BEFORE THE COURT

CROWN EVIDENCE CONTINUED.

: Evidence for the Crown in the prosecution of Daniel Richard Cooper and Martha Elizabeth Cooper, on a charge that they did, at Johnsonville, on 20th November, 1922, murder the infant child of Margaret Mary M'Leod and William James Welsh, was continued before Mr. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted; Mr. C. I A. L. Treadwell represented Cooper, and Mr. P. W. Jackson the female accused. William James Welsh, who entered the witness-box after "The Post" went to press, stated that he was a storeman. Witness said he accepted the child -as his, and was seen by Cooper with a view to having it adopted by someone. Witness signed an agreement to pay £1 weekly until £35 was paid. Witness did not sign the agreement with his .correct name. Witness paid £1 when ho signed,' and had since paid about £15. He thought Cooper mentioned the name of thp person whn was adopting the child, but he could not be certain, and did not remember what the name was if he did hear it. To Mr. Treadwell: He met the witness M'Leod in February, and was not introduced to her. Duncan M'Leod, a brother of the first witness, and a -salesman, said he saw Cooper, who told him his sister's condition. Cooper said he felt it was his duty to humanity to help people who had fallen. He was hot' out for gaiu, but the' expenses had to be met. A sum of about £50 was mentioned as ne ceasary to cover these. This appeared reasonable to witness. Cooper did n.<l stress the matter of money, and \va? prepared to accept any arrangement so long .as he got the amount in a r-iaso:----able time. Later' Cooper said iie ha-3 seen Welsh, who was prepared to mcci ' £30, and asked witness to find the i« mainder. Witness gave Cooper au lOU for £23 15e. : This amount was squared up, for £12, which Cooper agreed to accept. Ethel Tucker, a widow, said she met accused Cooper in 1922, when she took a position as typist. She remained un- ■ til the time of the arrest. She collected the money from M'Leod in settlement of the lOU. Florence Brown, a married woman, stated she stayed at the Coopers, where she did some sewing. Witness wrote the agreement which the girl M'Leod, Welsh, and Cooper signed. She saw the female witness before and after the child was born./ She'saw the baby when it was a week old. The Coopers told her both the M'Leod and the Lister babies had been adopted. At this stage an objection was entered by Mr. Treadwell as to the form of the questions, which were considered leading.l Witness, continuing, said it was strange the same Palmerston woman should adopt both babies. Cooper replied; that it was not the same woman out a relative who adopted the Lister baby. Lily Listen waitress, said Bhe met Cooper in June last, and subsequently went to Newlands. Witness was present at the birth of the other baby and left the same day. •James Scott M'Laurinj Dominion Analyst, said he received certain portions of/a child's body. There was also a bottle of what proved to be honey an^i sulphur. An examination was made with a view to finding poison, b;ut none was found. ■ Plans were handed in showing the section and various measurements, and the child as found in the grave, by Sen-ior-Sergeant Dinnie, who is in charge of the Criminal Registration Branch, Police Department. He said Cooper's house was exactly 'a mile from the railway station. Cooper had just under nineteen acres of land. At this stage the Court adjourned till 10.30 a.'m. today.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19230308.2.13

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 57, 8 March 1923, Page 5

Word Count
627

MURDER ALLEGED Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 57, 8 March 1923, Page 5

MURDER ALLEGED Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 57, 8 March 1923, Page 5