THE SEVERED HAND

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXV, Issue 7792, 24 February 1886, Page 4 (Supplement)

THE SEVERED HAND

MAGISTERIAL EXAMINIATION. The following is the conclusion of the case at the Magistrate’s Court:— Wednesday, Jan. 27. The hearing of the case was continued on Wednesday, at 10 o’clock, before K. Beetham, Esq., R.M., and Messrs P. Guinness and H. J. Hall, The attendance of the public showed no indication of any diminution of interest. Mr Martin called Sarah Ann Margett: lam the wife of Thomas Margett, carpenter, residing at Harman street, Addington. I recollect Dec. IS last. Mrs Howard lived near my house, but a little further up on the other side. On the afternoon of Deo. 15 I saw a man passing Mrs Howard’s house. He wore a large black soft hat and blue coat. He had a yellow face, and wore goggles. I saw the hat and goggles produced yesterday. The ones he wore were very much like those.

Mr Martin: Do you see any man in Court like the man you saw on Dec. 15. Witness: Howard is most like him in the size and features. It was between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon when I saw him. • . Norris Coleman, a boy nine years old, was called. He said to Mr Martin: Igo to Sunday-school. Mr Beetham : I don’t think it advisable to swear a child of such tender age. It would be better to take his statement. Mr Joynt: They must be very hard up for witnesses, I think, when they bring such as this.

Mr Beetham : I don’t know. Children’s evidence is frequently very reliable to a certain extent. The boy waa not sworn, and in answer to Mr Martin said his father was dead, and he lived with his mother opposite thp Southern Cross. • One day he was playing at the railway gates, Addington, when a man wearing a soft black felt hat, with a .narrow rim, gave him a letter. He went on to say: The man had glasses on his eyes. I took the letter he gave me to Mrs Howard. I took a letter back from Mrs Howard to the man. The hat produced Jiy Constable O’Rorke is not like the hat the man wore. The goggles produced are like the glasses he bad on. It was about 12 o’clock in the day when I saw the X E. Walson was called, but did not appear. Donald John Cameron : I am a sheep farmer in the Wairarapa district. I know the accused Howard as John Watt. I first saw him about Oct. 22 last. He came over to our place—Te Ore Ore. He said he was a carpenter, and wanted work. We did not -employ 'him on that day, but I told him that if he did not get any work before next Saturday, I would see him in Masterton and give him a job. I met him in Masterton on the next Saturday, and employed him. He worked for us two weeks. The work we had was finished -on Nov. 7. There was a Maori wanted some work done during that time, and he worked for him and lived with us while he did this, till Nov. 14. Before he finished his work for us, on Nov. 7,1 caw Howard write a letter. On Nov. 23 or 24 ■my brother, Walter Cameron, addressed the letter, I don’t know to whom. On the next day he gave me two letters, to give them to a friend of ours named Nichollson, who was coming down to Christchurch. Howard gave me a message for Nichollson, to the effect that the letters were to be given to Mr Howard or Mrs Howard. He told me the address but I forget-it. The letters were to be given to either Mr or Mrs Howard; if not, to no one else, and to be returned to him (Watt). Those are the directions which, at Howard’s request, I gave Nichollson. I -delivered the letters to Nichollson with the message I received. Watt told me that he was a runaway sailor, and stayed at Mr and Mrs Howard’s house in Christchurch. He said he had borrowed some money while he was staying there, and he was returning it in the letter. He gave no reason to me for getting my brother to address the envelope. He said that he wanted the letter delivered by Nichollson, because he believed the police were watching the Post-office, and if the letter went through it the police would know his handwriting and stop the letter. Walter Cameron : I am a sheep farmer at Te Ore Ore, in the Wairarapa, and a brother of the last witness. I know prisoner Howard as John Watt. I saw him at our station. He came there on Oct. 22. He commenced work on Oct. 26. He wore a black felt hat when he came. He was wearing a wig, I noticed, the first day be was there. He had a dark moustache. He made out that he was second mate of some -ship down at Port Chalmers, and had cleared out from her; he did not mention the name of the ship. I asked him what was the name, and he told me he could not tell anybody until ho knew the ship had left. I recollect his writing a letter, on Nov. 3,1 think. He did not ask me to do anything in connection with this letter. I addressed an envelope for him. So far as I remember, it was addressed to “ Mr J. Howard, first brick house, Battersea street, off Colombo road, Sydenham, Christchurch.” I addressed three envelopes -altogether with the same address. About Nov? 2 he gave m« a letter to copy for him, and I did so. Howard said that since he had met with the accident to his hand ho was not much of a His right thumb was off at the first joint. I don’t remember the contents of the letter. It enclosed £2 to Howard for money borrowed whilst prisoner was in Christchurch. Ho left off working for us on Nov. 7, hut stayed at our place till Nov. 14. I gave the envelops back to Howard after addressing them.

Herbert Nichollson : I am a farmer, residing at New Plymouth. I know Messrs Cameron, the owners of Te Ore Ore. I know Howard. At the beginning of November last I was over at Mr Campbell’s station. I saw Howard there; he was building a woolshed. I recollect Nov. 2, when I was at the woolshed in the afternoon. Howard was there. It was a Monday. Mr Eobert Cameron was there, but neither of the Camerons who gave evidence. E. Cameron said to me, “Well, Herbert, when are you going to Christchurch ? ” I, said, “ I shall have to go on Thursday, before the Wairarapa train comes in.” Howard said, " Oh, are you ■going to Christchurch ? ” I said, “ Yes.” He said, " Would you mind delivering a letter for me?” I hesitated and said, “You know my time is limited, and I have a good deal to do down there; but if it is not far, and will Hot take too long. I’ll deliver it.” He said, “Oh, it won’t take you five minutes. It’s quite close to the railway station.” He then proceeded to give mo the address to which he wanted the letter delivered, but I said “You had better, put it on the envelope in full, in case I should forget.” He said, “ Oh, very well. I’ll do so.” I can’t quite remember how it was led up to, but he said, “ Will you be out at the woolshed ? ” I said, “ Yes, I shall be there to-morrow.” He said, “Very well; I will write the note to-night.” Howard also told me that I was to deliver the letter to Mr or Mrs Howard, and if I could not find either of them I was to bring the letter back to him. The next day was wet, and I did not go - over to the woolshed. I was over at ' Cameron’s house on Thursday, Nov. 5. I did hot get any letters from Howard that day; but the day previous (Nov. 4) Donald Cameron gave me two letters, addressed to « Mr Howard, first brick cottage, Battersea street, off Colombo road, Sydenham.” Mr • Cameron gave me some directions with the letters- He said I was to deliver them to . either Mr or,Mrs Howard; I was not to

on my return if I could not. find them, Howard told me lie was going to’leave Cameron in four or five days, when the work was finished, hut he did not say where he was going to. I don’t remember that he made any remark as to his means. I came to Christchurch; arrived here on Saturday morning, Nov. 7. I went to stay with some friends up-country, and then came back to Christchurch about Nov. 11. I did not deliver the letters then; I had forgotten that I had them. I delivered them on Nov. 18. I found the address on Nov. 17, but no one was living in the house. I made enquiries, and in consequence of what I ascertained, I found the house where Mrs Howard was living, and delivered the letters to her personally. I asked her if she was Mrs Howard, and she said “ Yes, I am.” I repeated the question, and again she said, “ Yes.” I then gave her the letters. I asked her if there was any answer. She said “Yes” at first. I‘ saw her open the letters and take some bank notes from one. We had some conversation as to when I was going back to Wairarapa, and I told her 1 should not be going back for some time. She said the letters were from a man who owed her husband some account. She inquired as to what the man who sent the letters was doing, and I told her. At first she told me there was an answer, but afterwards, as I had told her the man would be leaving in four or five days, and I was not returning for about a month, she said she would not reply to the letters. When Mrs Howard read the letters she was very much agitated.

To Mr Joynt: I don’t know in whose Archibald Robert Watson : I am Town Clerk at Sumner, where I reside. Was there on Deo. 16. I did not see Godfrey there that I know of. He did not show me any hand there or at Taylor’s Mistake. I was not at Taylor’s Mistake that day. I know of no other Watson at Sumner besides myself and the Postmaster. Lizzie Amelia Kinnear; lama sister of Mrs Howard, and came out with her in the same £ ,l, 'D from Home. The ship was named tm. “Janet Court.” Howard was also in the same ship. When the vessel started, my sister was not married. She was married on board to Howard. Mr Martin : How far off land were you ?

Witness: I was very ill; I can’t remember. I think we had been seven or eight weeks out. My sister and Howard were married by the captain, John Crawford. There was no clergyman on board. They have been living as man and wife ever since the marriage. The ship sailed from Glasgow, and came to Port Cnalmers.

Elizabeth Ann Dowdall: lam a widow living in Harman street, Addington. Iknow Mrs Howard, the female accused. I have known her for some time. She has been living with me up to the time of her arrest. I knew her when she was living in Battersea street, Sydenham. It was a concrete house she lived in then. I know Mr Nichollson, who gave evidence here to-day. He brought a letter once to Mrs Howard. After Nichollson had left, Mrs Howard told me she had received a letter from a friend of her husband’s. She said she had had a sudden surprise, and got 30s in the letter. I recollect Mr Pender and Detective O’Connor coming to my house on Dec. 16. They came in a cab. I told Mrs Howard the cab was there. She said she thought they would bring Arthur; that he would get out of the cab behind the detective. I think my words to her were, “ How could they bring him out when he’s drowned ? ” I don’t remember Mrs Howard saying anything then. On the evening previous to Dec. 16, Mrs Howard bad been out between 7 and 8 o’clock, and came back between 10 and half-past 10 o’clock. I recollect hearing of the hand being found at Taylor’s Mistake. Before this Mrs Howard had said that she wished her husband’s body, or part of it, could be found. She had said that she wished that a foot without a toe, a hand without a thumb, or a hand with a ring on it, might be found.

Mr Martin : That is my case. Mr Beetham : Is there any wish on the part of the defence to call any witnesses ? Mr Joynt: lam not aware that there is. Mr Stringer: I don’t intend to call any evidence.

Mr Holmes: I don’t intend to call any witnesses, but intend to address the Bench.

Mr Beetham: What order will learned counsel take in addressing the Bench. Mr Joynt: I will not take any order at all. I don’t intend to speak. Mr Holmes: The order will go by seniority. My learned friend Mr Joynt will be first, I shall be second, and my learned friend Mr Stringer last. As Mr Joynt declined to speak.

Mr Holmes addressed the Bench. He said: Your Worships, I submit to the Bench that, there is no case whatever against the Godfreys. First, I will say that there is no case against Elisha Godfrey, and as to Frederick, there is not the shadow of any evidence against him. There is as much grounds against one of the Bench or against myself as against Frederick Godfrey. If your Worships will bear with me for a few minutes, I will ask you to look back at the charge, which is for conspiracy, the evidence for which must show one of two things: either a previous arrangement between the parties charged, or that they have done acts in furtherance of a common design. Now, it will be admitted at once that there is not a tittle of evidence of any arrangement or conspiracy between these two men, Godfreys, and the Howards. The only evidence on this is that given by Nicholls as to what Mrs Howard said. He swore that she said she never saw the Godfreys until after the hand was found and they had been arraigned in the Police Court. Mr Carter swears distinctly that he did not see the Howards with the Godfreys. Then we come to the statement of Elisha Godfrey. If that is to be taken against him at all, it must be taken to be correct. It comes to this, that the person who pointed out the hand to Godfrey is not the man .supposed to be Howard. Howard was a man'yearing a dark wig, having whiskers, and a large dark moustache, but the person who pointed out the hand to Godfrey was said by him to be of light complexion, and, I think, to have been wearing light clothes. Consequently, there is not one tittle of evidence to show that the person supposed to be Howard has ever been seen with the Godfreys or with either ot them. Then, Your Worships, is there any evidence of their having done anything in furtherance of any common design? What was the design? It is as alleged in the information, "with intent to defraud certain Insurance Companies.” What did these men do ? I will take this man (Frederick) first. What did he do? He went down with Carter and the other two boys to Sumner inacart,and then walked to Taylor’s Mistake. This man, Frederick, then said he was tired, and could go no further. When it was proposed'that they should fish there, he spoke to Moore, and asked if they were getting any fish there. Moore said "No.” Albert Godfrey then proposed that they had better go on-further. That was after the reply made by Moore, who told them that there was no fishing there. The only evidence that the hand was found is that of Elisha Godfrey, who tells you that he found the hand, and that at the time the man told him of it the other man, Frederick, was at a distance of twenty or thirty yards. There is not a tittle of evidence that this man, Frederick, ever even touched the hand. Who spoke to Carter about the hand ? Not this man. I asked Carter, and he said he had no recollection of Frederick saying a single word about it. They all come to town, and not a single thing has he done all the time. They bring the hand at once to town. Poes it look like the action of a conspirator that this o from SnTTUlpr

to the police station, and comes along and brings the ‘hand--at once - to"the police station ? If this man, Frederick, is supposed to be in the conspiracy, so were all the boys in the cart. He did not find the hand. The two sons of Elisha, and Carter, too, are conspirators if this man is. They came to the police station, and when this man (Elisha) was with Inspector Pender, Mr Pender asked him if these boys or the other Godfrey had anything to do with it ? Elisha said, “ No,” and the Inspector then said they could go, and they drove off all together. That is the evidence of the Crown. He (Frederick) then goes back to the Lunatic Asylum, where he is cook. I want to bring your attention to this, because you will recollect that when Sheriff gave evidence as to the person who found the hand, he said he gave the address at Chester street. This man (Frederick) was at the Asylum, and had nothing to do with it. You might just as well have charged the little boy who brought the letter to Mrs Howard, or Mr Nichollson, who brought the letter from Wairarapa, as being connected with this conspiracy. If the Bench commits him, it does what I say is an unjust thing. This man has been persecuted—l say persecuted —and just because of one thing,,because when the police came down to the Asylum with the intention of treating him as a criminal the man said, “ I have my work to attend to, and am not going to be bothered. I have my work to do.” Mr Martin: That is not in evidence. Mr Hplmes: Mr Pender admits that he said he would not be bothered. Can that be construed into an act done in furtherance of a common design ? He has never done or said a single thing of the kind. I say that he has been most cruelly treated in being dragged here day after day to stand on his trial when there is not a shadow or tittle of evidence against him. As to the other man (Elisha), the only evidence is that he has brought the hand to the police, and has made statements which are apparently contradictory. I say whatever the Bench may do with Elisha, they will do a cruel wrong against the other (Frederick) if they commit him. I challenge them to trace one single fact or statement in the depositions, from beginning to end of them, that has been done or said by Frederick in furtherance of any design to defraud anybody. Has he made a claim ? No. Has he spoken to any of these people ? No. Wrong as it will be to commit Elisha, it will be a still more cruel wrong to Frederick if he is committed for trial.

Mr Beetham: This is a misdemeanour, is it not, Mr Martin ? Mr Martin: Yes, a misdemeanour at common law.

Mr Beetham: With reference to Mr Howard and Mrs Howard, as she must be called whatever the result of the question raised as to the marriage before the Supreme Court, there can he no question that they must he committed for trial. The only point of difficulty is with reference to the two Godfreys. We think that under the circumstances they should be committed for trial. There is a difficulty in separating them. I don’t think that there is a very strong case against therp, but there is certainly a primti facie case. It is not my habit, in committing persons, to give many reasons, because, tor the sake of the accused frequently, the less said the better; but there are one or two things with reference to the Godfreys which make the Bench think it better that they should be formally committed for trial. If they are they certainly have themselves to blame for it, as they gave the most contradictory statements with reference to this matter, at a time when, according to their own showing, they mistrusted the statement of the man.

Mr Holmes: Your Worship, this will he taken down by the reporters. There is not a tittle of evidence that Frederick

Mr Beetham : It is difficult to separate the two brothers. They were together throughout the whole transaction. They >vere the only two who were with Howard at Taylor’s Mistake. Mr Holmes: What I object to is to your saying that they made contradictory statements. The only one who made a statement was Elisha.

Mr Beetham: The other Godfrey is to some extent identified with his brother. He refused to make a statement to Inspector Pender, and, on a subsequent occasion, when he was requested to make a clean breast of it. It is a question for a jury as to whether or not that sufficiently incriminates him in this matter. There can be no doubt that there is a question for a jury to decide. They have come into it, it may be innocently; but from the manner in which they have acted; I think they have so acted as that they should be brought before a jury. Whether they so acted thrqugh kindness to this man, Howard, or through a knowledge of what had been going on, it is not for me to say. They have not acted in this matter as any reasonable men might he supposed to do. What interest had they in acceding to an absurd request, which, according to their own statement, was made by tbis man ? But I think it is only necessary for me to say that the circumstances are sufficient to allow the Bench to commit them for trial.

Mr Holmes: I suppose on the same hail? Mr Beetham: Yes. I have not committed them as yet. They must he cautioned. Mr Walker read the usual caution, and the prisoners severally pleaded “ Not guilty.” Mr Beetham: You stand committed to take your trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. Mr Joynt: I apply to the Bench for bail on behalf of both of the Howards.

Mr Beetham : It is not optional with the Bench. It is only a question of how much. Mr Martin : I shall ask for very substantial bail. We have had some evidence as to Howard’s capabilities in disguising himself and in getting rid of his disguises. We shall have to ask for very substantial bail to make sure of keeping him now that we have got him. The fact that Howard left here twice without being known, shows the facilities that exist here for getting away. We have also the fact that Day got away in spite of his sureties. Mr Joynt: I wish to say one or two words before the question is decided upon. I don’t agree with my learned friend about the value of Mr Howard’s experience in the matter of disguises. All that has been attempted to be shown is that he has assumed the disguise of putting on a wig. He has not too much hair, any more than other people I may point to, and he has adopted the ordinary use of a wig. It is said that he was wearing a dark moustache, which is not attempted to be shown, as a disguise, and that he had an artificial thumb. You might as well say that an artificial tooth was a disguise. Then we are told that he wore goggles when in the strong sunlight. I have seen many very respectable people wearing them. What does it all come to ? That little boys and girls knew him, and the only people who did not were the exceedingly wise, astute, and sagacious police. He was recognised by children and not by the police. Is that a reason for an embargo being put upon the bail, so as to make it prohibitory ? Now that he is known to the police, if their eyes are sufficiently skinned, I ask you not to make it impossible for him to get bail. It will so largely interfere with the opportunities for him to get up his defence, that it will bp most unjust. I submit that there is not the smallest danger that Howard will be allowed to escape. The police, no doubt, now that their honour and reputation for sagacity are at stake, will look after him, and there are so many young people who by this time know him that he will be recognised wherever he sroes. I don’t say that he should have a

trifling' hall, but'one in accordance with his station in life. .V.

Mr Beetham: If we put a prohibitory bail we are liable to an action. The bail for the accused was fixed as follows:—For the two Godfreys, sureties of .£IOO each ; for Mrs Howard, two sureties of .£IOO each; and for Howard, two sureties of .£2OO each and himself in £ 2OO.

The proceedings then terminated. _ Mr Beetham attended again at the Provincial Council Chambers, at 2 p.m., to give an opportunity for the bondsmen for the various accused to give their sureties. Messrs George Humphreys and Joseph Bradley entered into the required bonds on behalf of the Messrs Godfrey. „Mr George Walker presented himself as surety for Mrs Howard, and Mr Stringer said he was willing to go bail for her to the amount of £2OO.

Mr Beetham said he would prefer two sureties, and suggested that perhaps Mr Walker could indemnify another surety. After a short consultation with Mr Walker, Mr Stringer stated that he was himself prepared to become one of the sureties for Mrs Howard.

No person appeared as surety for Howard, and he was consequently retained in cusody.