DEATH OF PHILLIS SYMONS

Northern Advocate, 14 August 1931, Page 6

DEATH OF PHILLIS SYMONS

CHARGE OF MURDER 1 HEARING CONTINUED. ' EVIDENCE FOB THE CROWN. (Per Preia Association-—ICopyright.) 1 Copyright.) ■WELLINGTON, This Day. Following is a continuation of the evidence given in the S.M. Court yesterday in the case in which George Coats is charged with the murder of Phillis Avis Symons. Two Shovels, Leonard Oswald Gyde said, he was employed as truck horse driver at the relief works at Hataitai. Witness had identified accused at the police station as a man whom he had seen working on the lower tip. Witness only knew aec’usecT. ijy a nickname. Coats told witness he hail asked the men to leave out alshovel as he wanted to bury a dog. One (Saturday night, about a week later, witness met accused, who asked for the use of his motor cycle. However, the machine was under repair, ancT witness told 'Coats so. Witness did not know any crevices in the bank in -which accused might have hidden a sEovel on June 26.

Vivian Morris said that on Friday, June 26, he was working with a man named Skilling on the lower tip. He commenced work at 8 o’clock, and a Jater on he noticed two shovels sjfljck.in, the side of the tflick line. There werp. no workmen in the vicinity of - the shpyels. ,at the time. Later on

the aa.me 4ay a man came up. Mr.'Treadwell objected to the conversation between the man and witness going'-in fias evidence. ' Magistrate said he had no doubt the conversation was -admissible, but, in order hot to prejudice accused, he directed that it be not published.

James Skilling, relief worker, also ■ gave evidence about seeing two shovels between the bank and the truck line on .thF m.Ofnihg of June-26. He agreed with the previous witness that there were no workmen in the vicinity of the shovels at - Tiiat time. The same afternddh a man came up to witness add'Met companion. On leaving he .pickdtf up bne ? of the shovels and disapdeardd rdund a bend. 'Gross-examlhed' by M/ James, for the defence, witness shift he made no effort tb : £%vetft 'the. man ' from' taking the sddvel, ? h6 'did hot hiehtion the nuutt'A He might have to Ms ihateS. " ■Charles I. Kidson, engineer in-charge relief -tfofka,-described the p'lafi for filling’a hollow to make a rifeW Ybbreatidn’ ground. Two' tips were being used: The lowest point would be at ’th6 : juriefeim ‘ between the two tips, about "40ft.’ below the higher level. This was veif near the position' where the girl’s body was found later." ' Alan Campbell Melville, taxi driver, said he had known Coats for more than 18 months. He knew he was keeping company 'with a girl named Phillis, and had often driven them in his car! Accused ftaftjhja/mail addressed e/o. witness, and often played cards with him and other friends. ' Accused, told him the* girl had run away from home. "Witness referred to a conversation with accused when the couple moved to Adelaide Eoad. ; A Letter. Questioned further, Melville said that had once said something about “giving her a crack,” Melville remembered Glover coming to him with a letter he had found on Tuesday, the • last day in June. On the following night, July 4, witness told •' -the lather of the girl about it. Witness knew that as a result of the letter a complaint was made to the police. Cross-examined by Mr Treadwell, witness said he was in the cab office when Glover showed him the letter, and he was with Glover when he showed it to Symons. They gave it to Symons the next morning, Sunday. Symons read part of it out. “He was pretty cut up,” said witness. The court adjourned until this morning. TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS. CONTINUATION, OF EVIDENCE. (Special to “Northern Advocate,”) WELLINGTON, This Day. The preliminary hearing of the Crown case was continued this morning. ' Mrs. Isabella McKenna, of 43 Adelaide Road, said accused called to see her on June 29, in connection with letting a room. Witness let a room ' at 7s 6d a Week. He stayed at the hofise until July 6. During that time no girls came to see him, and he did not' mention the name of any girl to witness. He did not have a dog while he was at the house. A Widow’s Story, Olive Irene Claire Smith, a widow, of 140 Adelaide Road, said that about April 2 she let a rftora to a Mr. and Mrs. Coats. Accused was the man, and she recognised the snapshot produced as that of Mrs. Coats. Accused was working on relief worn. A weeks after the pair came to her house witness suspected the girl’s condition! She had very little clothing, and the pair appeared to be very hard up. Witness saw Mrs. Coats wearing only onb black dress, and sometimes a pink overall. The dress became very shabby towards the finish of (heir stay. The girl wore a wedding ringJ J

ami a ring with-a-red stone in it, as well as a string of beads. She was very shy and quiet. ‘Witness saw her almost every day. For the first few weeks the pair were there, they spent their evenings in their room, and had frequent visitors. One of them was de Maine; another was Glover. There

was also a woman, whom witness understood to be accused’s sister. During the last six weeks while the couple were at the home, accused w r eut out in the evenings more frequently than before, and Mrs. Coats stayed in her room. Departure. About June 24 witness spoke to Coats about the rent, asking if he could let her have two -weeks’ -rent that was owing. He replied that he was not earning much money, and there w T as only enough to buy food, if things did not improve he would have to send his wife home and go to a cheaper place. On Friday, June 26, witness could not remember Coats being around the place. About 8 o’clock that night she heard the footsteps of two people coming down the stairs. She formed the impression that they were Mr. and Mrs. Goats. She heard footsteps returning to accused’s room some time after 10.30 o’clock. On the Saturday afternoon, June 27, she again mentioned the rem L to the .accused. He said he had not t the money then, but was expecting some money, and that he had sent his wife home last night. That was the | first knowdedge she had that Mrs. Coats had left.

Counsel: “Did she leave without saying good-bye to you?” Witness; “She never mentioned leaving at all.” Witness said the girl’s condition at that time was very noticeable. On the Monday accused told her he was leaving. He said he had sent his Wife home although he did not like doing it, as he and the, .girl ’s mother were not on good terms. He said he was going to a place in Brougham Street. He took away his ease, apd that was the last she saw of him. A carrier called that afternoon, and collected a wooden box which accused had left outside his room. When witness went up to his room, it was locked. De Maine called in the evening, about 7 o’clock, and witness took the key of the room from him, got a cushion he had. come for, and. gave it to him, retaining the key. Mrs. Coats did not come baclf to clean out the room. Witness did not see her again after June 26. AVitnessi cleaned out the room. There was a lot of burnt paper in the fireplace. She took all the burnt rubbish and put it in a dustbin. On the duchess table was a bottle labelled “poison.” She also saw a string of beads that Mrs. Coats used to w r ear. They were broken on the floor by the fireplace. The fireplace was pretty well full of ashes. Witness identified a pair of pink slippers and two pairs of boots with clay on them which she had handed to the police. She did not search under the matresses, and she did not notice the letter which was subsequently found by Glover. , Wfiile accused was at her house he did not have a dog. From April 23 to May 30, said witness, she conducted a small greengrocery in a shop at the front of the house. She used to get Teelings, one of the boarders, to buy the vegetables. She bought six sacks of vegetables, and as the sacks were emptied they were put in the coal house. The sacks were numbered and marked when she received them, and the numbers and markings were shown in the invoices produced. Witness identified five of the sacks produced. On July 18 she was present when the police cheeked the sacks with the invoices, and the five corresponded with the invoices. The missing sack, according to the invoices, was marked 16. The sack produced was similar' to the one which had been missing. Questioned by Mr Treadwell, witness said she had a good opportunity of seeing and conversing with both Mr and Mrs Coats when they were living in the house. She spoke to them separately, and together. Mr Treadwell: “Your impression of those two people was, I suppose, that' they were a happily married couple?” —“Yes.”

“And they were both very fond of each other?”—“He was always very affectionate to her.” She thought the girl might have been rather shy, on account of her state of health. Her recollection was that on Friday, June 26th, Mr and Mrs Coats went out together. She heard them when they passed her door. She had no doubt it was Coats and his wife.

Counsel: “I put it to you that you heard two lots of footsteps return after half past ten?”—“l could not say how many returned, but I heard footsteps go to Coats’s room.” “I put it to you that you thought that the two sets of footsteps returning were those of Mr and Mrs Coats?” —“Yes.”

“And if you had been asked the next day, if there had been no talk of a disaster, you would have thought it was Mr and' Mi's Coats?”—“l took it for granted it was them returning.”, “Are you quite sure that you saw Coats on the Saturday?”—“Yes, I .saw him on Saturday, Sunday- and Monday.”

“You had a conversation with him each dav?”—“Yes.”

“1 put it to you that he did not appear disturbed or alarmed in any way?”—“His manner seemed quite

normal.” “Quite friendly with you?” — ‘ 1 Yes. ’ ’ Witness said the .last time she saw him was on Monday. He knocked ou

her door and walked into the kitchen, and witness followed.

Counsel: “You had quite a friendly conversation with him I” ‘ < Yes. ,,

“And his manner on that day was the normal, friendly manner he had always towards you?” — “Yes.” ' ' ' r *

“When you were in your roam, and they in their’s, could you hear them talking?”—“l could hear their voices, but not what they ewre saying.”

Witness did not see Glover at any time after Coats left. Glover would probably go up to Goatts's room, if he did not know Coats had left. If she had been in the room underneath Coats she might not have heard him. If she had heard anyone moving about she would have gone up to see who was there. Counsel: “And Glover did not come to you and tell you he had found a letter?”—“No.”

To Mr Macassey, witness said all the boarders entered the house by the i.a -k door, and she woull n-t take rny notice of the visitors, whe used to go upstairs without seeing her. Glover could quite easily have gone upstairs without her seeing him.

Lancelot Lee, a married man, said lie had worked with Coats on the Hataitai relief work. During the latter part of April they were working together on the lower tip, and became, quite friendly. Coats mentioned that lus wife was dead, and that he had six children in a home. He also said he had a girl and he mentioned about a la'dy sending away for some stuff to have a desired effect upon her. About April 27 he was working with accused on the tip when a young man carrying a sack came along. He said the sack contained a dead dog. He said his father was a chemist and that the dog had been run over by a ear. He also said that he often got a job to have dogs poisoned by his father. Witness scratched a hole and buried the dog in the side of the bank. Accused was present. Witness gave evidence as to visiting several times at Coats’ room, ami said that on the night of June 27 Coats told witness .that Phillis had gone back to her brother’s place, and would be all right there. (Proceeding.)