“ARGUS,” THE PROPHET

Otago Witness, Issue 3489, 25 January 1921, Page 42

“ARGUS,” THE PROPHET

DIVINING THE FUTURE AN OFFENCE. AUCKLAND, January 21. Judgment was given in the Magistrate's Court by Mr Boynton, tt.M., in the case in wnica Charles Eouis Copeland, professional entertainer, and ids son Argus N. J. Copeland, aged II years, were charged w/tu: (i) Bietend/iig to tell fortunes; (2) Bretentuiig from skin and knowledge m the occult alia crafty sciences to discover where and m what manner any goods and chattels supposed to have been stolen or lost might be round; (5) using subtle craft to deceive and impose upon ms Majesty's subjects. ihe case was heard on Monday. last, an adjournment being made to allow the boy to demonstrate his alleged telepathic powers before the magistrate and representatives of the press. On that occasion the magistrate said that he had personally tested the boy’s powers, and had expressed regret that the suoject had not received scientific investigation. It deserved this. A demonstration was given in open court betcre judgment was delivered, the magistrate ruling that only representatives of the police, officials of the court, and representatives of the press might submit tests, as if unofficial people were concerned it might be said that defendants had confederates present. None of the tests involved alleged foretelling of future events, being confined solely to thought-reading. Blie method followed in most cases was to show to th© father articles which the boy (who was blindfolded and sat beside the magistrate) usually described accurately. Cards selected from a pack were correctly named, and in several instances written questions were correctly answered. One court official asked how many subjects he had sat for in a recent examination and in how many ho had passed. The correct numbers were given. The questioner, of course, was in possession of the result of the examination. It appeared that the boy could usually read his father’s mind and occasionally the minds cf other people, the demonstration being similar to that sometimes seen on the stage. In his judgment the magistrate said that the boy was sometimes sensitive to thought force emanating from his father’s brain. It was not a case of code or apparatus to convey surreptitiously tlie father’s impressions, but a genuine instance of telepathy. Dealing with the fact that at entertainments answers were given by th© boy to questions as to future events, Mr Boynton said that this pretended divination of the future was as old as humanity. In the present case stress had been laid by the defence upon evidence given by some witnesses as to the correctness of the boy’s predictions. “That dees not convince,” said the magistrate; “every fortune-teller, astrologer, or other humbug could bring similar evidence.” The father’s engagement he proceeded, was to exhibit, his boy’s telepathic powers, but the public had afterwards asked for more. The average theatregoer was not so much interested in the scientific aspect of telepathy as in the result of the next horse races, a love affair, or business ventures; and it would be difficult indeed to prevent fortune-telling creeping in. The father believed in his boy’s prophetic powers, so that there was no intention to deceive on his part. The boy, under liis suggestion, believed in his powers of divination also. After citing cases on tho subject which (said the magistrate) give but little authority, Mr Boynton said that under the law. if a person cutting the cards or reading tea leaves or otherwise indicating the future had no belief in it, and said so, there was no offence. An offence consisted in undertaking to tell fortunes. That was a profession to divine the future and it was immaterial whether the offender believed ifi his powers or not.

Ihe law did not recognise such a power, and undertaking to exercise it was an offence in itself. In this case there was a pretence to divine the future. It was injurious to the public to rely on such forecasts. \\ hat is tlie good of doing anything? It is all written in the Book of Fate,” was a bad mental condition to get into. Apart from parasites being encouraged by belief in fortune-telling, the selfreliance and resourcefulness of individuals were weakened if a belief in fatalism were developed. Brogressive peoples were those who believed that their futures were in their ow n hands. Although he thought an offence had been proved, he did not wish to convict the defendants. The father was sincere in his confidence in his boy’s powers, and the boy was under his father’s influence. He was a fine lad in every way, and it would be wrong in the circumstances to convict him. He would be admonished and discharged. As this was a test case the father would be discharged on payment of the costs of prosecution. The magistrate added that it was regrettable that the boy's powers were not being investigated and recorded by scientific men. He was very intelligent, and did not become unconscious during the seances, so that his feelings and impressions could easily be ascertained. Mr Fleming, who, with Mr Rodger, appeared for the defence, thanked the magistrate for the sympathetic hearing he had fib en the case; but said he was not sure that h© agreed with the judgment on the law, and indicated that an appeal might be lodged. His contention, as stated prior to the delivery of the judgment, was that the boy could foretell the future in so far as the future had its roots in the present.