THE MOAT MYSTERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12272, 16 May 1903, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE MOAT MYSTERY.

DOUGALL BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. PROSECUTION'S STARTLING STORY.

THE SEARCH AT THE FARM.

At the date of the despatch of the latest papers the body of Miss Holland had not been found on the Moat Farm, and the search was being prosecuted. The charges of forgery against Dougall were being proceeded with.

Samuel Herbert Dougall was brought up at Saffron Waldcn to answer a charge of forgery. The charge related to a cheque, value £28 15s, payable to J. Heath, bearing the date August 28, 1902, and purporting to be drawn by Miss Camille Holland. Prisoner is a man of middle height, and dressed in a blue jacket suit, with turndown collar and white tie. He is a man on whom time has laid no heavy hand; his features, regular and almost handsome in profile, look less attractive when seen full. One then notices the crowmarks and slight puffiness around the eyes. His beard is more deeply tinged with grey than his long, sweeping moustache. His hair is thin, but quite dark. He looked very nervous, and his face had a most strained expression.

Mr. Pearce, who appeared to prosecute, commenced by alluding to the remarkable story he had to tell of the disappearance of a lady of means, and subsequently dealings made by prisoner with her property, expending over a period of several years. A part of the case was all he could present to the pencil for the moment. The cheque which formed the subject of the charge was only one item in a long series of forgeries, by means of which the property of Miss Holland had been manipulated by prisoner. Prisoner was a married man, and in the latter part of 1898 he made the acquaintance of a lady named Oamille Cecile Holland, between 50 and 60 years of age. She was possessed" in 1893 of sonic £6000 invested in stocks and shares, which she had inherited from relations, a banking account, jewellery, and other effects. In 1898 prisoner and Miss Holland took a furnished house at Hassocks, Brighton. The rent was paid in her name by cheque.

Mr. Pearce then proceeded to state that Dougall had made a long statement to Police-Inspector Pryke, formerly in charge of the district, on, March 4. The officer asked him if he knew where Miss Holland was, and prisoner replied: —

" I know nothing about her, and have not seen or heard from her since I took her and left her at Stanstead Station three years ago. I drove her there with her luggage, which I took. It consisted of two boxes. I know none of her relations or friends."

The inspector asked, "Is it a fact that Moat Farm and land belonged to her?" "No," replied Dougall ; " I purchased them with my own money." The officer mentioned that it was reported that Miss Holland was confined in a room in the house. Upon this . Dougall laughed and said, " You may look round," and in reply to further questions Dougall denied that Mrs. Dougall and his servant had been given any of Miss Holland's clothing or jewellery. He repeated that she had left nothing behind. "In brief," said Mr. Pearce, " his tale is that she had no money, she left nothing behind, and Dougall had nothing from her in the shape of property." Examining into those statements, the prosecution found that at the time that Miss Holland disappeared she had about £6000 in securities and a banking account. Very soon after her disappearance prisoner started a banking account at the Birkbeck Bank, in Chancery Lane. On October 3, 1899, they found "an item of £670 placed to his credit, which came from Miss Holland's account at the National Provincial Bank. This was the beginning of Dougall's bank account. Dougall's dealings with stocks and shares were then shown. There would be submitted by the prosecution, said Mr. Pearce, . a large number of the documents by means of which, it was alleged, he had appropriated the greater part of the lady's property. In nearly every case there was what purported to be the signature of Miss Holland. Many letters written after her disappearance, 'were in Dougall's undoubted handwriting. Although she had been in the habit of dealing with her own affairs and writing her own letters, they found for the first time since her disappearance letters to bankers, stockbrokers, etc., written in the handwriting of Dougall, and signed with her name by Dougall, as the prosecution alleged. To begin with, the house had been purchased with Miss Holland's money, but the execution of the conveyance had not taken, place. The contract was in her name, however. After the disappearance Dougall made efforts to get the conveyance executed to him. He wrote a letter to the solicitors of the owners of the farm, a letter which was in his undoubted handwriting, but purporting to be signed by Miss Holland. lb alleged to be an authority, signed by the lady, authorising the conveyance of the laud to be made out in Dougall's name as purchaser. This was done, and the conveyance was found on the premises. "It is interesting," went on Mr. Pearce, "to look into this lady's banking account after her disappearance, and make some comparison Between that and prisoner's banking account. Laige sums of money had been drawn from her account, and the prosecution alleges that they had been drawn by prisoner." In support of that conclusive evidence, continued counsel, would be submitted by six cheques, representing that £2884 had been withdrawn from Miss Holland's account, and each of these, cheques found their way into Dougall's account at the Birkbeck" Bank. The one which formed the subject of the charge was made payable to H. Heath, whom the prosecution presumed to be a fictitious person, and was endorsed by prisoner. That cheque was the only one the prosecution had. The others had been returned to Moat Farm, and, counsel suggested, had passed into prisoner's possession. Evidence would be submitted to show Douipill had undoubtedly sold securities, the property of Miss Holland, in September of the year in which she disappeared. Dougall wrote to her stockbrokers. Messrs. Hart and Co., of London, instructing them to sell certain shares, which realised £1008 Is 9d. The letter was signed by what purported to be Miss Holland's signature. "Although prisoner said she went away in May," said Mr. Pearce. " we find in September a document purporting to be signed by Miss Holland—a share transfer in execution of this sale of her holdings." Having sold these shares, prisoner drew a cheque for £670, which he transferred to his own account, and other cheques were given to local tradesmen.

Counsel stated the particulars of other transactions.

( The first witness called was Mr. Ernest Sydney Legrand Holland, employed at Somerset House. He said he was the missing lady's nephew and next-of-kin. He had last seen his aunt in 1893. Sh. would be about 60 if she were alive now. His aunt was very careful of her money, and was a good business woman. Shown the signature of the cheque relating to ' the present charge Mr. Holland pronounced it a forgery. He had recently visited the farm, and had identified several pictures, painted by Miss Holland, and plate, books and linen that belonged to his aunt. A number of witnesses were then examined.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE PROBATE COURT.

Mr. H. B. Deane, K.C., on behalf of the executors of the will of Miss Camille Cecile Holland, applied in the Probate Division for leave to presume her death on or since May 18, 1899. The learned counsel stated that on that date she left home, in company with a man of the name, of Dougail in a pony cart, saying she was going to the neighbouring village to do some shopping, and that she would be back in an hour or so. Mr. Dougail returned, but she never came back, and had not since been heard of. She left a will, and it was for the purpose of proving that will that he now asked leave to presume her death. It was dated February 16, 1894, and by it she appointed Mr. Helrnsley, solicitor, and her nephews, Edmund George Holland and,

Ernest Le Grand Holland, executors. The will was left in the custody of the solicitor, and it was in his keeping at the present moment. The solicitor's affidavit in the case only went to the extent of setting out that it was absolutely essential that th© propery should be protected. Sir Francis Jeune gave leave to presume the death of Miss Holland from May 18, 1899.

ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT. In the King's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Wilis, and Mr. Justice Channel!, Mr. J. R. Randolph moved for a rule nisi, calling upon Mr. Pearson, the editor, etc., of the Daily Express, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in publishing articles tending to prejudice the fair trial of S. H. Dougall, now under remand by the Saffron Walden justices on a charge of forging a cheque in connection with what is knowon as the Moat Farm mystery. The learned counsel read extracts from the articles, which, he said, put forward the theory that Dougall had murdered Miss Holland, the lady whose name he was said to have forged. The learned counsel also made a similar application against those responsible for the News of the World, who, he said, had published matter that was practically copied from the Daily Express. A third application was against the Star newspaper, which had published an article on March 20, which purported to give a history of Dougall's career, and alluded to another charge of forgery made against him. The obvious inference from the article was, he said, that this must be a case of forgery, because Dougall had made away with the woman.

The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said the Court thought there should be no rule in the cases of the Daily Express and the News of th. World. It was important in applications of this kind to see that nothing was published that prejudged the case or imputed guilt to a man, or gave information which the persons before whom the case would come would not be entitled to have. On the other hand, there was, of course, a right to comment upon mysteries and undiscovered crimes, provided the comment did not transgress the rule he had attempted to lay down. It was obviously in the interests of justice and of the accused person that there should bo public notice of certain matters, and fair comment upon matters of public interest was not to be prevented by a rule of this kind, or by any other proceedings. The two papers, the Daily Express and the News of the World, had not, the Court thought, transgressed the rule he had alluded to, and did not seem to have gone beyond fair comment on an undiscovered mystery. In the case of the Star it was different. In that case passages of the article did seem to connect the person charged with one of the crimes, and comments were made upon him which might have a prejudicial effect upon his case. They, therefore, thought that there should be a rule against the Star.

Mr. Randolph said the Star was owned by a limited company, and he supposed the rule would be against Mr. Ernest Parke, the editor. The Lord Chief Justice assented. A rule nisi, calling upon Mr. Parke to show cause wiry he should not be committed for contempt, was accordingly granted.