ALLEGED MURDER

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 235, 1 September 1927, Page 2

ALLEGED MURDER

CHARGE AGAINST BOAKES. CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Aug. 31. The hearing of evidence in the case in which Charles William Boakes is charged with the murder of Gwendoline Isobel ScarfE was concluded to-day. Boakes was committed for trial on the charge of supplying a noxious thing, pleading not guilty. The magistrate reserved his decision on the murder charge, saying that ho would have to consider the evidence, but would give a decision to-morrow. Alfred Moulin, a taxi driver deposed that accused used to be on the same stand with him. He had a conversation with accused two or three weeks after' the murder. He was speaking to accused and said: “You know-what things are being said about you round the town, Charlie; that you have been going out with the girl Scarff.” Accused said that it was not him, but some other Charlie. * He also said that he was going down Colombo Street, when lie passed the place where the other 'Charlie worked and it brought it to his mind then that this other Charlie used to meet her at night after work and take her out. STATEMENT BY BOAKES. Detective-Sergeant Young gave evidence first as to finding the body and then as to the statements by Boakes. He said that Boakes was interrogated at length at tire police station. Boakes stated that he had known Miss Scarff for 15 yearn, since she was a child. He carried cyi business for Scarff, senr., who was a carrier, first while Scarff was on a holiday and then when he was absent owing to illness. He used to drive a motor truck which was housed at the Scarffs’ residence. He used to see Gwen Scarff, then 15 or 16 years of age, but had no intimacy with her. After a time Boakes left Scarff’s employ. One day Scarff. senr., came to him saying: “What the hell have you been doing to Gwen?” Boakes replied. “What do you mean?” Scarff said: “She had a kiddie.” Scarff said that it had died, but that it was Boakes’s child. They had discussed the matter on other occasions, but Boakes had denied point blank that the child was his. . Later Boakes said that he saw Gwen Scarff and asked her why she said that, the child was his. She said: “I was so damned ill and had to blame somebody.” He asked whose it was and she said she didn’t know. ACCUSED’S DENIALS. During the past eight months while he had been driving the taxi Boakes said further he had seen the girl frequently. He had never had intercourse with the girl in his life. He last saw her on Saturday, June 11, and on Friday afternoon, June 10, at the Federal Hotel. He did not know who had sent for him and had been surprised to find her there. She “howled at top.” The girl had told him of the trouble with her mother and father and had said: “We are going up to the North Island next week.” Boakes asked: “Who are we?” but the girlwould not tell him. He did not know she was in trouble. He had never held any money for her, nor had he ever procured medicine for her. Any statement the girl had made about him being unhappy at home or as to his intention to set up a home for her at Hastings was damned lies. He had never seen nor had in his possession the spanner produced. On June 27 witness had arrested Boakes and had charged him with the murder of the girl Scarff. When the charge was read to him he 6aid “Uh.” Boakes was then locked up. Detective-Sergeant Bickordike corroborated portions of Detective Young s statement. After Detective Young had left the,office Boakes said to witness: “Have they found the thing that killed her?” Witness replied that he did not know. He interviewed Boakes about his movements. Boakes denied having brought the girl in his taxi from her employer’s house in Cashmere. He had been to Cashmere in June 8 to pick up a fare, but the fare was a man, a stranger to him. He was not at Burwood on June 8 and had never had Gwen Scarff out in his car. He denied that the military overcoat found was his. He had once had a car of a certain make but sold it six years ago. All the tools went with the car including spanners similar to that in the possession of the police. The spanner held by the police was not his. Boakes said that about 1910 he had trouble about an illegitimate child in Auckland of which he was not the father. He got six months for perjury over the case. “ANOTHER CHARLIE.” After the statement had been read to him (continued witness) Boakes said: “There has been a hell of a lot of talk about me messing about with this girl. A man might have had intimacy with her, but that is not to say I murdered her. There is another Charlie besides me and he knows her well. He does not get on well with his then said: “Who is the other Charlie?” Boakes replied: He works in a coal yard in Colombo Street, near the hills.” . Witness said: What is his full name ?•’ ’ Boakes replied : ‘ ‘l don’t like dragging other people into it; but his name is Charlie Keys.” Witness said: “Can you give me any information that Keys knows anything about the murder?” Accused replied: “It is your duty to find out, and you know how to do it.” , Boakes denied statements made by Mr. King, the chemist’s assistant about the purchase by Boakes of pills and ergot. When King was brought to the police station and asked to repeat his earlier statement to the police in Boakes’ presence Boakes assumed a threatening attitude. Witness interposed as he thought Boakes might strike King. Boakes said to King: “You are a ljar.” Boakes denied having had letters from Miss Scarff except one about four months ago• Charlie Keys gave evidence that he had known Miss Scarff seven years. He had never taken her out on his motor cycle or in his car. He had not a military overcoat. . This concluded the evidence. Mr Thomas submitted that there was no prima facie case agaifist his client Boakes on a murder charge. On the other charge of supplying a noxious thing to Miss Scarff he admitted a prima facie case had been, established and Boakes would have to go to trial on this charge. The magistrate found that Ellen Gwendoline Scarff died on June 15, 1927, having been murdered by some person by means of a blunt instrument. In regard to the charges, Boakes was committed for trial on the charge of supplying a noxious thing, pleading not guilty. The magistrate said that lie would consider the evidence and give his decision on the other charge tomorrow.