Sensational Evidence at Inquiry Into Girl’s Death

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6626, 13 August 1931, Page 7

Sensational Evidence at Inquiry Into Girl’s Death

Allegations of Murder

Times Special

WELLINGTON, Last Night. The preliminary hearing of evidence against u-oorge Lnul Boats, a laaouior, ageu 29, on a cnarge oi murdering minis Avis toymens, agon it, vtu oee oouy was innuu ,jvmed m tue Town uelt at L-iioir-nio, was commenced in tne Magistrate's Court to-aay. Long beioro xO o’clock a crowd, including a number of women, had gathered outside the doors of the Court minding, and waited patiently in „ue rain until tney were admitted. The public gallery was packed during tne hearing, and many were unabie to obtain admittance. There are thirty witnesses to be heard, and it is expected that the hearing will be a protracted one. The accused was seated in the deck, and although he rarely looked at the witnesses he appeared to be listening carefully to their evidence. Among the exhibits were garments said to have belonged to the dead girl, letters, and many photographs of the place where the body was found,

Mr. E. Page, S.M., was On the Bench. Tlio Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. 8. K. Macassoy) conducted the case, and the accused was represented by Mr. 0. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr. H. J. V. James. Suppression of Reports Asked Por. Air. Treadwell said that before the evidence was called ho had an application to make to tho Court. He asked for an order prohibiting totally tho publication of tho proceedings in the newspapers. That his Worship had power to do so seemed to bo beyond question. Tho Court was neither a linai Court, a Court of trial, nor an open Court. As his Worship knew', section 143 of the Justices of tho Peace Act enabled the Court to conduct such inquiries as the present in such a form as the Court thought desirable. Counsel referred to an English case which reached the House of Lords, and with reference to which Lord Haldane had expressed the principle upon which he was arguing. In tho prosent case, counsel continued, as his Worship could not have failed to observe, there had been very considerable publicity, publicity which had given rise, entirely wrong as ho was instructed, to rumours, suspicions, and prejudices against the prisoner, It was the duty of tho Court, tho prosecution, and tho witnesses for tho prosecution to make tho duty of the jury at the trial as clear and simple as possible, so that they could cairy out their oath and thus give a verdict according to tho evidence. The effect of the publication of the proceedings must necessarily .be prejudicial to the prisoner. Only one side of the case would be presented, there would doubtless be little cross-examination at this stage, and it would be a fruitful source of suspicion and prejudice, because an apparently primn facie case would be presented. It was therefore wholly against the interests of the prisoner that the proceedings should be broadcast throughout the country, enabling every potential juryman to be miiuenceci. “The time has come, it is over-ripe, when proceedings of this land, of the gravest kind, should not bo published," counsel continued. ‘ Authors of legal journals have already expressed that opinion in no uncertain way. A - though this application may have no precedent in New Zealand, it requires only, I submit, the common knowledge of the effect of publication to warrant your Worship making the order I ask for.ln a case recently heard m -England a man was indicted and subse* auently convicted of murdering a man whose identity was never discovered. In the Court below at tho preliminary hearing, certain evidence was led which was found to bo inadmissible, and some was not proceeded with at the tna . That meant that tho accused was prejudiced from the beginning, and so tar as Coats himself was concerned the effect of the publication would be the same Alternatively, counsel asked the Court to prohibit any reference to evidence which might be objected to by the defence. Publication Established Practice. Air. Aiacassey said ho only desired to say that it had been the established practice for years to publish the evidence at the preliminary proceedings, and he could see no reason tor departing from that practice now. He pointca out that when the case came on for trial, if it did, counsel tor the Crown and the presiding Judge woiilu, as was invariably done, tell the jury to disabuse their minds of any preconceived notions. In previous cases publication of th; evidence had resulted in further eviucnce being obtained. Air. Treadwell said it was easy enough for a Judge to tell the jury no to be affected by what they had previously heard, but how could a jury discard the effect of months of collaboration with their fellow men? What did it matter to tho Court below it iui ther evidence was obtained by the publication of evidence? Tlio Court was concerned with providing tor a tail trial. The possibility of getting further evidence, weighed against the evil effect the prisoner nugut suffer, was a b Mr. Page said it was clear from the statute that the room or building in which a preliminary inquiry took place was not necessarily to be deemed an ooen Court. It had been for very many years the invariable practice for •nquiries of this kfcS to bo conducted in public, and if he gave the prisoner the bene at of tlio application he would find it difficult to refuse a similar application in almost any case of moment. It seemed to him that while the statute remained as it was it w-ould not be desirable to order suppression of the evidence. In regard to the alternative application, Air. rage promised to give it consideration if there "was any evidonee the admissibility of which was in doubt. Photographs Produced. Edmund Walter Dinnie, senior-ser-geant in charge of the Criminal Registration Branch at Wellington, said ho took photographs at the relief works job at Hataitai on Monday, July 13. Ho produced the photographs. One. of the photographs was of an, impression

Thirty Witnesses to he Heard

where it was pointed out to him the girl’s body had lain. John Maxwell Grant, a surveyor of the Land and Survey Department, said that on Tuesday, July 27, ho accompanied Detective Baylis from 140, Adelaide road to a spot where tho body of a girl was alleged to have been found. Ho took observations and measurements of the various routes o n the way. He produced a plan showing the shortest routes between the two places. Mother’s Evidence. Alary Sophia Hymens, the mother oi the uoceusou gin, was tno next witness. Hilo saiu that sue Had six child rcn. Pnillis Avis Symons was her daughter, and was born on December 3, Wlo. i-millis attended various schools m Napier and. Wellington, leaving school at the ago of nmrteen, when sho was in the iiith standard. She was rather backward in learning, but was otherwise a normally hoaithy gilt Apart from doing two weeks' work last Christmas the girl had stayed at home. Witness remembered the relief works being in progress in Mortimer terrace, and had made tea for the men on tho work. Some of them visited the house to get-the tea. Witness met tho accused coats about this time, her daughter introducing him to her. At this stage the witness became unwell for a time, and had to be removed from tho Court. AVhcn tho witness returned she saiu that Coats was one of the relief workers. On returning from the pictureo one night-in October, 1930, she found Coats and her daughter Phillis standing on tho top step inside the gate. Sue remembered Phillis leaving homo on a Sunday at the beginning of March, 1031. The girl had been a little “fussy” that day, but it was really nothing. Witness was not well, and would not let her daughter out that dav. As a result of that difference the daughter left home. Witness did not know where her daughter had gone, but she had taken very little clothing. She had taken a dark coat with fur on the collar, a dark pink overall, a dark dress, a pleated skirt, a black straw hat, a cream fuji petticoat, and other clothing. The witness positively identified certain clothing produced as belonging to her daughter. . At this stage the witness again becamo hysterical, and the proceedings were held up for a while. Other clothing tho witness could not identify, but sho identified the handwriting on some letters as tnnt of ner daughter, and also a snapshot. Air. Treadwell objected to this last evidence, saying it could °n!y have a sentimental value, and had no P r °b tivo force whatever. It would only prejudice the accused. , Air. Aiacassey: ‘ Aly object m not i n any way to prejudice the accused, vour Worship. You will see later on that the accused will say the gir had gone away from lum and that these articles were found in a certain place where they were sent oy him. . After Air. Treadwell had again objected, the Magistrate said that he proposed to allow the evidence to go in. A letter in her daughter’s handwriting was also identified by the witness. When the girl was at home, she said, she wore a bead necklace, but no ring. On the night of July 12 witness identified the deceased’s body at the mo - gue. There was no cross-examination. Quiet Disposition The girl’s father, George Henry Symons, a motor body builder said he received a letter about July 5 fr° m man named Glover.. It ww ““ s daughter’s handwriting. He made a complaint to tho police the same day. Ho did not sec his daughter alive after she left home in March The cWd vM inclined to be backward and had childish wavs. Her disposition was quiot. Air. Treadwell did not cross-examine Myrtle Bone Lamb, married sister ot the deceasod, said she did not know the accused. She detailed a number of garments taken away from home by the deceased, and identified certain clothing produced as having belonged to her sister. Phillis used to wear a pink bead ueeklace at homo, but no ring. Alurray Symons, machinist, a brotner of the deceased, said that ho was now living in Washington avenue, but until March, 1931, had been living at home in Mortimer terrace. His sister lef home about a fortnight before he did, and after she'left ho had not seen her, although he had tried to communicate with her once or twice. He had met Coats several times, but had seen him at his parents’ house. He had met Coats at a picture theatre about'.September of last year. Witness was with his sister, and when Coats saw them he came and eat beside them. Cecilia Winifred Simc, single, living with her mother in Abel Smith street, said that Coats was a boarder in their house from August 25, 1930, to Alarch 4, 1931. During that period a young girl used to come to see Coats.. Witness identified a snapshot of Phillis Symons as the girl Coats used to address the girl as “Phillis.” On the day Coats left the house the girl was there and assisted him to pack up. The girl seemed to be of a rather sad disposition. Coats did not have a dog when he lived at witness’s house. During the last month the girl used to come to the house for Coats about every other day, and for the last fortnight about every d£l To Air. Treadwell, witness said that until the day when Coats went away the girl always stayed at the front door. Air. Treadwell: As far as you know while you were there, this girl and Coats were always on friendly terms? Witness: Yes. Violet Goffin, married, residing at to Kent terrace, said that she knew the accused, who stayed at her house for about three weeks in Alarch. He was living with a girl who witness thought was Airs. Coats. Mr. Treadwell objected to the witness being asked to identify the deceased from a small photograph (produced), and the objection was noted. Witness said that Coate told her he had three children in an orphanage. While the girl was at witness’s house she was not in good health, and stayed in her room and would nor cat anything. She kept entirely to herself and

ecemed very quiet. When Coats finally left the house he said he "was taking a bigger house and Mrs. Coats would look after the children, whom lie was taking out of the orphanage. Ho did not have a dog whilo ho was at witness’s house. “Wife for the Time Being” Stephen Tooker Parker Doidge, a married man’living in Brougham street, eaid he was a labourer, and let rooms. Coats came to stay at his plaeo in March last. Ho was accompanied by a woman, and witness recognised the snapshot (produced) of the deceased as a photograph of the woman he knew as Mrs. Coats. The pair only stayed a Week. Coats did not have a dog. Arthur do Maine, waiter, said he had known Coats since about 1918, when the latter was a steward. Witness was away from Wellington for some time and returned tho last time on April 14 of this year. He renewed his acquaintance with the accused, who was living at 140 Adelaido road with a girl named Phillis Symons. Tho accused had a sister named Evie, and witness went with her to the accused’s room in Adelaide road. Coats introduced the girl Symons as “his wife for tho time being.” Witness visited the accused almost every day. About five weeks after the first visit, tho accused spoke to .witness about tho girl Symons being in a certain condition. Witness and Evie used to play cards at the house at night, and there was also there a man named Glover. Evie gave Coats a syringe and a recipe. Thero was somo remark made about tho syringe, but witness could not remember distinctly what it was. He thought it was something about a miscarriage. The Duty of the Witness A little later on Mr. Pago said that the witness gave the impression that he was not telling all he knew. He was hero to tell the truth, and all the truth, and to answer the questions put to him. “Do you understand that duty?” asked Mr. Page. Witness: Yes. Mr. Macassey: Do you remomber Evie making any remark to Glover in the presence of the accused? Witness did not answer. Counsel: Can you not recall that?—l think there was some remark by Evie to Glover about the girl’s condition. Counsel: What was it? Witness again did not answer. Mr. Macassey: I submit the witness is hostile. Mr. Page: I would like you to proceed a little further. You may be right about it. Just sec if you can get what you want without referring to tho police statement. Mr. Macassey (to the witness): What did Evie say to Glover?—lf anything happened to Phillis would ho help lie bury her. Counsel; What did Glover say?—He said: “What do you think I am?”

Counsel: Were those his words? —1 think they were. Mr. Macassey: Did Evie like Phillis? —Oh, I .think she liked her in a way. Counsel: Did you hear Evie tell Coats what he ought to do to Phillis? —I think she said something—that she ought to go home.

Counsel: Were those her words? Surely you can give us something more definite than that. The witness was silent until the Magistrate told him to answer the question. “I can’t exactly remember,” he then replied. Witness said he heard Evie instructing Coats in the use of the syringe. Mr. Macassey: On whom? —I think it was on Phillis. Counsel Dissatisfied Evie left Wellington, said witness, on May 7. Witness continued his visits to Adelaide road, and he remembered going on one occasion about June 3. He remembered Phillis coming in and she looked a bit white: but she was always white. 1 Counsel: What did she do?—She just lay down. Counsel: Did you see what sho did with her hand?—She just put her hand lip to the back of her neck. On the following night, when speaking to witness, Coats said that Phillis’s neck was sore. Mr. Macassey: Did he say how it happened? Witness was silent, and Mr. MacasBey made an application for the witness to be declared hostile. Mr. Treadwell said he knew nothing, of course, except that apparently the witness was not answering questions as Mr. Macassey would like him to do. “I submit the Court has no power to allow cross-examination of a Crown witness at such a proceeding,” he said. The Court was adjourned until the afternoon in order to allow counsel to produce authorities. 1 ‘Fencing With Questions.” When the Court resumed Mr. James submitted that the Crown had no right to treat the witness as hostile and cross-examine him, as the hearing was only a preliminary inquiry. The witnesses the Crown was calling were not necessarily Crown witnesses. It was merely an inquiry to get at the truth. Counsel said he had been unable to discover any precedent for the application mado by - Mr. Macassey. If the Court held there was tho right to declare the witness hostile, counsel submitted that the witness could not be regarded as hostile merely because he made a different statement from that made to the police. There was nothing before the Court to show that the witness had not given his evidcnco to the best of his recollection.

Mr. Macassey said he considered the ■witness was hostile in his demeanour. The questions put to him concerned matters which he could not have forgotten. It was submitted in regard to declaring the witness hostile that the same mie applied as anywhere else. The Magistrate said ho knew of no authority for the proposition that a different Tule should apply at such an inquiry. It seemed to him quite early in De Maine’s evidence that he was obviously fencing with the questions put to him. He thought it was his duty to say that he regarded the witness as answering the questions in a hostile manner. If necessary he would grant permission to Tefer to statements previously made by the witness. However, he thought it was better to extract his evidence without that means. Cause of Heck Injury/ Continuing his evidence, Do Maine said that Coats told him that Phillis was complaining about her neck being sore. Mr. Macassey: “Did he tell you ■why her neck was sore?”—“Yes.” “What did he say?”—“He just said her neck was sore.” “Did he tell you what was the cause of it?”—Witness hesitated until Mr. Macassey asked him to speak up, and he then said: “He said something about a hit over the neck.” “Did he say what with?” Witness again did not answer, and

tho Magistrate warned him that ho must answer tho questions. Mr. Macassey: GDid he say how Phillis’s neck was sore?”—“Yes; he said he just tapped her over tho back of the neck.” “Did ho say what with?”—“Yes, with a bit of wood.” “Did he say whero he did this?”— “Yes, at Hataitai.” “Did ho say what effect this had on Phillis at Hataitai?”—“Ho said it just stunned her a little, that was all.” “Did ho say what Phillis said after she came to after being stunned?”— “I can’t recall it.” “Did ho tell you why ho had gone to Hataitai with Phillis?” —“I can’t remember. ’ ’ “Did he tell you why ho hit her?”— “I understood it was to bring about a certain result.” “Is that honestly what he said?’”— “Yes.” “You say that on your oath?”— “ Y T cs.” / “Good Place to Bury a Dog.” Mr. Macassey: “Hia He maxe any reference to relief works at Hataitai the night ho hit Phillis over the neck?” 'rhe witness was silent for somo time, and when asked by Mr. Macassey why ho did not answer, replied: “I am just trying to think. ’ ’ Ho then said that with reference to the works at Hataitai, Coats had told him it would be a good place to bury a dog. Mr. Macassey: “Did he say anything about Phillis at Hataitai?” The witness remained silent, and was then asked: “Did ho make any remark about the earth that came down in the tipping?” —“Yes.” “'What wa3 it about?”—“About Phillis. ”

“What did he say?”—-The witness hesitated for somo time before he replied: “Something about Phillis being there and hundreds of tons of earth coming down.” “Did ho say why he took her there?” There was no answer. “What was tho connection between the earth and Phillis?’'’ Again there was no reply. Mr. Macassoy was given permission to refer to tho statements previously made by the witness. Witness said he advised Coats to send the girl home, and not to be silly. On June 1:5, a Thursday, witness was assisting at a tobacconist’s shop in Newtown, kept by Jack Glover. He met the accused that afternoon, and was with him until about hall'-past four. Coats then asked witness to buy food for the evening meal at his house, saying that he himself was going to see a friend at Hataitai to ask him to leave out a shovel with which to bury a dog. The accused caugut a No. 2 tram. So far as witness knew, Coats had never had a dog. Witness went to tho Adelaide road house, Phillis being there at the time. The accused returned at about half past 5 oclock, and, in reply to witness, said that lie had got on all right. His friend was going to leave out a shovel. Giover and a man named Lee came in after tea. Phillis said they were leaving the house next day, and said something about rent. Witness anil the other men left at about 11 o’clock. That was the last time he saw Phillis. The following night Coats visited witness at the shop. On learning that witness would not be leaving until closing time, he said he would not wait, and remarked that Phillis had gone home. Witness added that he saw accused on various occasions on the following day, when it was said that the girl had gone home between that date and July t>. When he was arrested accused had not mentioned Phillis’s name. When Coats moved from 140 Adelaide road on Monday, June 29, he gave witness the key to get a cushion and give it to tho landlady.

Mr. Macassey: “A day or two prior to his arrest did accused mention anything to you?” 1 ‘ Yes, he said something about trying to get to Auckland.” “Now X .want to come back to when he told you about hitting her over the head with a piece of w r ood at Hataitai. Did he tell you what she said when she came to?” “I can’s recall.” “Did he tell you why he had gone over to Hataitai with Phillis?” “He said something about. ..er ..” Mr. Macassey here asked permission to refer witness to the statement he had mado to the police, as witness w T as hostile. Part of Evidence Suppressed. On Mr. Treadwell’s submission the Magistrate directed that the evidence which now followed, where portions of the statement were referred to witness, should not be published, and evidence given in this way lasted for about 21) minutes. Mr. Treadwell said he understood from the evidence that at the time tho girl was alleged to have received the tap on the back of tho head she wms living under tho same roof as Coats and that she continued so to live as though they were a happily married couple. Witness agreed. “About these statements you made to the police how many were there?’’ asked Mr. Treadwell. “Three.”

“When you made the first one how long were you at the police station ” “Prom about 8 p.m. to 11.15 p.m.” ‘ ‘ How many were there ?’ ' “There was Detective Baylis.” “Yes, but just tell me how many thero were.” “Well, a tall gentleman kept coming in.” “And on tho second occasion horv long were you at the station ” “Prom 7.30 to 12.30.” Warned to Tell the Trutn. “Now I’m not suggesting anything improper about the police, but you were a witness this morning. What did the polico say to you at lunch-time directly after the adjournment?” “They told mo to tell the truth.” “Did they warn you?” “They just advised me to tell the truth or it would go bad for me.” “With regard to these allegations of killing in tho statement, how did you look upon what Coats was telling you?” “I thought he was just joking with me.” John David Glover, a machinist, said, answering Mr. Macassey, that ho had known Coats for about a year. His wife died on Anzac Day, 1930, and he told witness that he had six children in an orphanage. Ho first mentioned Phillis when they were working outside her place before Christmas. He told witness some time later that the girl was living with him. Questioned further, witness admitted that Coats had spoken of the girl’s condition and that he gave her some pills. Later Coats had moved to Kent terrace, where he lived with Phillis. Witness visited them three or four times a week at this address and he remembered Phillis boing ill there with gastric flu’ or something like that.

“Did accused say anything in reference to Phillis’s condition when they were in Adelaide road?” asked Mr. Macassey.

“He said he’d use a needle on her

and if she did die he knew a good place to bury her.” “What did he say about the relict works at Hataitai?” “Ho said hundreds of tons went over there every day and that if .you did put anyone thero nobody would ever find them.” “When he talked to you like that what did you say to him ” “I told him the police might find out. ’ ’ “Did he ever say anything about low tide?” “He said that if you buried a dog on the beach, in six weeks there’d bo nothing.” Visit of Accused’s Sister. Witness went on to givo evidence about tho period when accused’s sister, Evic, came down from Auckland. She had told accused not to break tho syringe and it was taken down from tho top of a cupboard, Coats having said that ho had got the syringe “to fix up Phillis.” Witness gathered that Coats had got it from Ms sister. Coats also had an envelope marked “strictly private,” which he told Phillis to put in a drawer and not to lose. “One night do you remember seeing accused with his head buried ■ in his hands?” “Yes.” “How did he appear?” “Worried.” “Did he get up and say something to Phillis?” “Yes, he said, 'get the needle, Phil, I’m going to do it to you now.’ ” After further evidence had been given witness said that Coats had asked him on a later occasion whether, if Phillis died, he would help to bury her. —His reply had been, “what the —■ — do you think I am?” ' J She Court then 'adjourned. ‘