CAR BANDIT’S DEATH

Taranaki Daily News, 16 January 1934, Page 8

CAR BANDIT’S DEATH

SEQUEL TO A ROBBERY SHOTS FIRED AT TYRES. “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.” Justifiable homicide was the verdict returned at the adjourned inquest on November 22, at Southwark, London, on Philip Wilfred Jaeger, aged 26, who died in hospital on November 11. Death was due to peritonitis, following a bullet wound. He had been admitted to the hospital shortly after Mr. Rupert Wagner, a brewers’ collector, of Guildford, had’ fired shots at a car driven by bandits who had robbed him of a bag containing £l2B in cash and cheques. The coroner, Mr. Douglas Cowburn, sat with a jury. He said at the opening of the inquiry: “The evidence to be submitted to you is such as demands your close and serious attention.” Constable George James stated that on November 10 he kept a watch on No. 98, Camberwell New Road, which was opposite his house. The Coroner: You were doing that deliberately ? —Yes. What was the first thing you saw?— I saw a motor-car drive from the direction of the Oval and pull up outside the door opposite. It was a dark blue saloon car. I then saw a man get out and tap at the door. I saw Philip Jaeger come to the door and answer it. The man returned to the motor-car, and got in it. About five minutes later Philip Jaeger ran out and got in the car, which then drove off. Witness added that he had been instructed to keep watch on the house. He was about to give the reason when he was stopped by the coroner. BULLET HOLES IN A CAR. Mr. Harold John Warrender said that a motor-car which he had previously seen in the vicinity of the court was his car. It ceased to be in his possession on November 8. He reported the loss to the police. The car had not been in his possession since. Detective Percy Law, from the photographic department, Scotland Yard, produced three photographs of a car, which, he said, bore the index No. 2015. The photographs, he added, showed that there were two bullet holes, one below the waist line at the back of the car, and one at about the centre of the panel of the offside door. There was a mark on the radiator just above the starting handle. Dr. Watkins said the bullet entered the man’s body high up, just below the ribs on the right side. There was no organic disease. On behalf of Jaeger’s relatives, Mr. I. F. Reuben, barrister, was questioning the doctor about the young man’s treatment in the hospital, when the coroner said he could not then go into that; it was a matter of administration. George Tiddy, licensee of the Five Oaks public-house, described how at 1.10 p.m. on November 10 he was in his saloon bar. . There were two customers, and they ordered whisky and a small bottle of ale. At about 1.15 Mr. Wagner came in. He was paid £l2B 16s 7d in cash. “He gave me a receipt in the ordinary way of business,” added witness, “and placed the cash in a bag, saying ‘Good-bye.’” The Coroner: What happened to the two men?—There was not a soul in the bar when he left. Witness next heard what sounded like back-firing from a car. Mr. Wagner re-. , turned, and when witness told him he ’had not got a telephone, said: “They have got the bag.” MR. WAGNER’S EVIDENCE. The next witness was Mr. Rupert F. Wagner. He spoke of his visit to tire Five Oaks. When he entered the premises he shut his engine off. Hi noticed a large dark-blue saloon car at approximately 80 to 100 yards away, facing him on the opposite side of the road. A man was at the driver’s seat. “I went round the comer into the saloon bar,” witness added, “and noticed two men standing with their backs toward me, apparently looking at a picture or something on the wall. I passed behind them through the bar-flap. Mr. Tiddy let me through and paid me this 16s 7d. I had a number of cheques, as well as cash, hi the bag. I think the cheques were for about £BOO or £9OO. “I walked round the corner again to my own car and placed the bag on the near-side seat and slammed the door. I saw two men walking along the pavement from the direction of the saloon car—one was a few feet in front of the other. I recognised the two men. One passed my car and went to the door of the public-house.' By this time I had reached the off-side of my car. “The next thing that attracted my attention was my near-side door clicking. I saw a man in the act of grabbing my bag. The door was then open. The blue car had been set in motion toward me The man with my bag jumped on th' uming-board of the car which was o toward me. I pulled my gun out Oi ...y pocket then. The man who had previously looked in the public-house was on the running-board. I cannot say how he got there. USE OF THE REVOLVER. A small Webley Scott automatic pistol was produced and handed to Mr. Wagner, who said it looked very much like his. He added that the weapon was loaded in six chambers, and he pointed it at the approaching car. “The car failed to stop,” he said, “and I fired at the near-side front tyre in an effort to stop the car.” Witness said he steered to the side of the road and got out of his car. He then ran after the other car, which was gathering speed very quickly. When he got approximately to the centre of four cross roads he fired another shot at the rear tyres. The Coroner: Did you see what was happening to the men on the runningboards ? —Witness: I was not particularly interested; I was watching the car itself. Witness added that he fired the other four shots, and the ' car was about 25 yards from ru... when he discharged the last one. The man on the near-side running-board was out of his vision; the one on the off-side had his head through the window of the car, and his legs were sticking in the air. He was trying to get through the window. You. fired at the tyres, and not the man ? —Yes. I could have fired • at the men when the car was coming toward me. I telephoned for the police as soon as possible. DIFFERENCE IN SPEEDS. Answering further questions, Mr. Wagner said he had a police permit to be in possession of the pistol. This was on account of the nature of his business. When the jury returned, after having adjourned to inspect the car, the coroner recalled Mr. Wagner and asked him why he did not pursue the car in his own. Mr. Wagner replied that his car was facing in the wrong direction and his engine was off. He also realised that the other car was capable of doing something over 70 miles an hour when his own would only do 35 or 40. Miss Wendy Margaret Jaeger, sister

of the dead man, said that she lived with her mother, and on November 10, when it was just getting dusk, she heard a knock at the front door. She answered it, and saw her brother Philip looking white and ill. He was accompanied by two men who took her brother into a bedroom. She had never seen either of the men before. Did you see a police officer that evening ?—Yes. Did you not tell him that you saw your brother Philip playing about in your garden with your brother Marcel that afternoon ?—I may have done. I put it to you that you told the police officer that you saw your brother Philip and Marcel playing about in the garden at 3.30 that afternoon ? Miss Jaeger hesitated and remained silent until the coroner asked her, “Did Marcel tell you to say that?’’ “Yes,” replied the woman in a whisper. The Coroner: And is that true or is it false ? Witness hesitated for a moment and then said quietly, “It is true." The Coroner: Did you not subsequently tell Inspector Ellis that what you said was in fact, false ? “No,” said Miss Jaeger in a voice which was almost inaudible. The Coroner: Do you say now that it is false ? Miss Jaeger stood staring at the coroner for a few seconds and then answered quietly, “Yes.” Then why did you not say so before ? Why did you tell this story to the police officer ?—Because Marcel told me to do SO. Was that because you did not want the police officers to know how your brother had been shot ?—I don’t know. The Coroner (angrily): Oh, come, you are not so simple as all that. Was it not because you did not want police officers to know how your brother had been shot? Miss Sadie Morris, the shot man’s fiancee, was the next witness. She was self-possessed and gave her answers firmly. She said that she had been “keeping company” with Philip Jaeger for the last five years. On the Friday in question she went to his room to say good-bye to him at about 7.55 a.m., and he was quite well. The Coroner: Did you ask him what had happened ?—No. What did you say to him ?—Nothing. Just at that moment mum came in with hot water and I went for the doctor. What did you tell the doctor when you asked him to come ?—I had been told a confused story that Philip had been hurt in the garden. You told him Philip had been shot in the garden ?■—Possibly I did. Dr. Harold John Howel stated that Miss Morris called at his house on the evening of November 10 and said that Jaeger and his brother had been playing in the garden with a gun, and one of them had been accidentally shot. Dr. Howel said that someone at the house told him that the man’s name was Williams. Mr. Reuben (who represented the shot man’s relatives) asked permission to address the jury, but this was refused. Summing up, the coroner said that it was important to observe that the stealing of the bag and th> shooting formed one continuous transaction. The relations would not say the time the dead man returned home, but as they had admitted telling definite lies to the police they might know more about the time he was brought home than they would say. In addition, the dead man’s name was given erroneously to the doctor. Why, he asked, should there be that systematic tissu of lies told to the police and the doctor, and what was their motive in doing so ? The jury returned the verdict as stated.