FORTUNE-TELLING.

NZ Truth, Issue 216, 14 August 1909, Page 5

FORTUNE-TELLING.

STEPHERSON THE SPIRITUALIST SUMMONED.

Is Madame Wine a Wizard?

WHEN IS A CONSTABLE AN ACCOMPLICE?

Prosecution of Sooth-sayers at Auckland.

The alleged fortune-tellers and oracles were again before the Auckland Police Court on Monday. This time, however, proceedings were advanced a stage, and some interesting and diverting evidence was adduced during the hearing of two cases. The charge against William Stcpherson, the spiritualist, or spook-raiser, that he did "undertake to tell fortunes," had been adjourned for a week, air Napier, for the defence, raised the legal point that the constables who obtained "a reading" from defendant were accomplices, and. their uncorroborated evidence, therefore, could not be accepted. On Monday Mr Cutten, S.M., gave his reserved decision on this legal point. He said : — "There can be no doubt that any person getting his fortune told IS A PARTY TO ' THE OFFENCE. ' (Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, Section 184.) It is a rule of practice that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not accepted as sufficient to support a conviction. In the Licensing Act there is a provision that the evidence of a purchaser of liquor may, if otherwise satisfactory, be sufficient to support a prosecution for selling. Jn the Gaining Act there is* a provision that constables m the course of their duty becoming parties to offences under the Act shall be deemed not to be accomplices. There is no such provision m the Police Offences Act and there is no reason that I know to except from the rule above; stated a constable who is a party to the commission of an offence under the Act ; even though lie is at the time acting under instructions from his superior officer. What corcoboration is necessary will depend upon the facts of each particular case, but it must be CORROBORATED IN SOME MATERIAL 'PARTICULAR. I can express no opinion about the present case, as I do not know the facts. Sub-Inspector Hendry decided to call evidence; so that the Magistrate could gather the circumstances. He briefly outlined the circumstances m opening. ' Cop. McGrath, a not bad-looking young rooster, with a faint line of fluff fox a mo., was the firsi witness. He stated that he went to the premises of defendant, accompanied by another peeler, the youthful, clean-faced Gillespiic. Witness tapped with his boot, and defendant entered. Witness asked for a reading and Stepherson took him into an adjoining room, which was m semi-darkness. '•'On being seated he took my right hand," continued witness. "He sat down also and made passes across my • face with his left hand, and worked his fingers across my forehead. This continued all the while and he seemed to be unconscious of his surroundings and m a sort of trance". Then he said, 'There is a letter travelling on the sea which will give you great pleasure ; you will also MAKE A VOYAGE TO AUSTRALIA, probably m August, but will make a much longer one at the beginning of No- , vember. You will also make a good deal of money out of a land transaction.' " Mr Napier : Did he tell you where to buy the land ? - The Sub. : No, that is one of the constable's complaints. Continuing, witness said : "He also said I would do better on the other side of the water, and saw a bright future for me m Queensland. He also said there would be a death m my family shortly. He kept hold ox my hand all the time. He said, 'I see you m a Government position, and m a uniform, will you tell me what that is ?' 1 said, 'Yes, 1 have been m the militia, which was perfectly true. At the conclusion I asked - how much, and he said ss, which 1 paid.". Defendant had then come out of bis trance. Only witness and defendant were together while "this rigmarole'" was recited. Gillespie could not hear what was said. Cross-examined : Defendant did not tell him that he was a constable. Witness was not a spiritualist. Defendant did not say before the reading that he would give witness "spiritual instruction." The Sub-Inspector : You have received no notice of a death m the family ?— No. Mr Napier : It will come. Sub-Inspector : Oh, yes, it will come all right— in time. (Laughter.) The youthful cop. Gillespie was next called. When he first called there were three ladies and three gentlemen waiting to see Stepherson. He returned later.' The point arose as to whether this witness's evidence was admissible, as he was the witness for the prosecution— : in a second charge. Mr Napier contended that the evidence could not be admitted. The evidence was allowed, but the Magistrate • noted Mr Napier's objection. Continuing, Gillespie stated that he visited the place about 11.30. Defendant entered and witness asked him for a readfng. There were five or six others waiting. Defendant took ,him into a semidark room, \ND THEN WENT INTO A TRANCE. Defendant told him he was a Government official^ and had been sent by a Government official. He added that witness ' 'would be connected with a great Court case soon." Defendant then said witness's father was a very broad man and had a high forehead and was connected with the Police .force." He. said witness would go to Australia soon, follow mining, and do well. He added, "You have f allen out with a young lady, but will make it up m about a month's time." He said his charge was ss, which witness paid. The waiting people were still there when he left. Sub-Inspector : Wow, have you had a j oung lady ?— No, never, sir. Mr Napier : Have you ever had a row with an old lady '.'—No. Did he not tell you he was a spiritualist before he took you into the room ?— No, he was m a hurry to get through me, as others were waiting. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr 'Napier contended that there was no case to answer. He was charged that he did "undertake" to tell fortunes. According to the Standard Dictionary, which [ was accepted by the High Court m England, to undertake "means to guarantee performance of a contract ; to contract to have done ; to pledge oneself, and to engage." There was not a tittle of evidence to prove- that defendant guaranteed to tell the fortune of either constable, or that lie made any contract whatsoever. They asked to have "a roading" ; they did not ask to have their fortunes toM. There was no proof that he undertook to tell fortunes ; and secondly, there was not sufficient corroboration ot an admitted accomplice. Counsel said he did not know where the prosecution had taken the "undertake" from. It certainly was to be found m George Eliot's novel, "'Adam Bede," viz., "With a single drop of ink for mirror, the Egyptian sorcerer undertakes to reveal to any chance comer the* far-reaching events of the past." What defendant undertook to do was daily being done by people li!ce William Stead, of the "Review of Reviews," and Sir William Crooks, the eminent scientist, and millions of people of lesser intelligence believed that these things could be done. Even spirit-rappings, which many

people ridiculed, were known m Asia thousands of years ago. A number of members of Parliament were spiritualists, notably Mr William McLean, the Wellington ex-member, who had WRITTEN A BOOK ON THE SUBJECT. Counsel said he need scarcely refer to the bible, but he had sixty extracts from the sacred Scriptures to show that what defendant undertook was well-known amongst the Hebrews. It was part of the religion of Spiritualism to communicate messages from the spirit world through mediums. It was too late m the day to say mediums did not exist, because there were thousands of prominent men who would swear that mediums did exist, to communicate messages from the'spiritual world. If defendant, had peculiar powers— and there were many men who did— what occurred at the "reading" was a transmission of information and certainly was not fortune-telling. It was not an , offence to tell fortunes ; it was the "undertaking" to do so that constituted the offence. But m the present case there was no proof even of fortune-telling. Counsel submitted that there was no case to answer, but would call evidence, if necessary. Argument followed as to the question of corroboration, and whether the evidence of the second constable m each- case — who ,was not present at the interviewwas admissible. In the course of the discussion Mr Napier said defendant did not derive the whole of the proceeds. He had a certain share, hut "like any other minister," he was entitled to get a living out of his profession. He was a delegate irom Australia, and would have returned before this, but for the prosecution. Counsel's contentions were (1) That there had been no "undertaking" ; (2) that there was no corroboration. Mr .Cutten reserved his decision on the point as to whether or not there was corroboration. On Tuesday afternoon Mr Cutten .gave his reserved decision on the point raised by Mr Napier dealing with Stepherson's case. He said the evidence offered was not corroboration such as was required to support a conviction. Two constables arranged to go together to get the fortuneteller to tell their fortunes, and the Magistrate thought they arranged it m that way to get the defendant to commit the offence. This made BOTH THE" CONSTABLES PARTIES TO EACH OFFENCE. Therefore their evidence was the evidence of accomplices, and the' Magistrate agreed with the point raised by Mr Napier that the evidence of one . accomplice offered m corroboration of the evidence of another was not sufficient to convict. Defendant did not give evidence denying what had taken place, therefore the informations were dismissed without prejudice. The next case was against an ancient darae of 73, with the gay and festive moniker of Madame Wine. She was charged that she did "undertake to tell fortunes." Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was defended by voluble little Lawyer Matthews. In thds case the Sub-In-spector stated that there was distinct corroboration, so that the legal point would not arise. Cop. McGrath "was again the chief witness. He stated that on June V, acting under instructions, he went to No. --9, Napier-street, over the door of which was the sign, "Madame Wine." GILLESPIE HAD MADE THE APPOINTMENT. m the morning, and accompanied witness m- the evening. " Defendant opened the door and took the two "Johns" onto the front room. She talked about reading painrs, and said she had "been the standard m New Zealand for 21 years past. She said one would have to leave the room, and witness went into a room at the back. The partition was very thin, and witness heard all that she said to Gillespie. He heard her say that there would be money coming to him and that he would live to be very old. Also she said ■he was a very muscular young man, and would be connected with a shipwreck but would not be drowned. Defendant added that he would receive two letters, one of which would be good and the other bad. Witness then went into the front room, after Gillespie left, and was told to lay both hands on the table, palms up. She studied them and told him there was money coming from a near relative-; that he would live to be about eighty ; WOULD GET MARRIED VERY SOON, and would not have a big family, "say' two or three." He would also make ay lot of money over land transactions. At this stage, Defendant ejaculated, m a hoarse; audible stage whisper, "Oh, good God !" Witness paid her five "hog," which was what she asked for. -Sub-Inspector Hendry : She said you were going to get married soon. Have you any intention of committing bigamy •? — No ; I am already married. Cross-examined : He did not ask to have his fortune told. He asked for a reading. She did not tell him that she thought he was going to get married "because he looked so young and innocent." , Co'nnsel : And did she not tell you she had a grand-daughter she could recommend to you as a wife V—Yes,Y — Yes, I believe she did. Counsel : Yes, she was laughing at you, and you thought it great ' fun. Because you know, constable, you do look rather innocent. Did she not tell you she thought you would get on because you are selfopinionated and have a good opinion of yourself ? — No. Cop. Gillespie also gave evidence. "She told us she believed m spirits." Sub-Inspector Hendry : What sort of spirits— under-proof or over-proof ? Describing what happened after McGrath left the room, witness said defendant read his palm by a magnifying glass. She said he had pood lungs and laidneys, and would live to a great age. He had a good business hand and his "luck wo'ild be m at every full moon, as he had filbert nails." The last statement she made was that he would be left a large sum of money soon by a near relative. Before she' began the reading she I asked him to place 5s on the table, and' he did so. ! Sub-Inspectbr Hendry : I suppose you thought SHE HAD A GOOD BUSINESS HAND, when she made you pay m advance ? Witness said he heard defendant talking to McGrath, but was not sure what * took place. During his interview no spirits were intraduced — "not of any sort." Cross-examined : When he first asked for v reading she said she had given it up, looked him suspiciously up and down, and consulted her daughter. She seemed afraid, but made an appointment for the evening, when he was to take a friend. While reading his hand "the spirits were talking to her." Sul)-I.nsnector Hendry : Did she say anything about the \mii of "a black-