CHARGES FAIL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20054, 11 March 1935, Page 14

CHARGES FAIL

PALMISTS BEFORE COURT

POLICE MATRON'S VISITS Holding that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., dismissed charges of imposition by palmistry which were preferred against two Timaru women in the Magistrate’s Court on Saturday. Defendants were Annie Marie St. Vincent Jaxon and Beatrice O’Donnell (Madame Elucidas) and they were charged that, by palmistry, they did deceive and impose upon one of His Majesty’s subjects, Charlotte Hodgson. Mr J. P. Steven appeared for Mrs Jaxon. Both pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson said that in consequence of a complaint, the Police Matron, Mrs Hodgson, was instructed to visit the defendants and, if possible, to obtain a palmistry reading or have her fortune told if they professed to foretell the future. When she called on Mrs Jaxon she was conducted to a sittingroom. Taking her hand, Mrs Jaxon told her certain things which would happen to her son and daughter, later telling her the fee was 2/6, which was paid. Her Lucky Number 4 Charlotte Hodgson said she called at Mrs Jaxon’s place at 1 o’clock on February 26 but was told to come back at 2 o’clock. She was taken to a little front sittingroom where she waited till another woman went out, when she was taken into a kitchen. Mrs Jaxon asked her age, whether she was married and how many children she had. She did a lot of figuring with a pencil and then told her that her lucky number was 4 and her son’s was 6. "She said my son was a clever boy and wanted a change of occupation. She said she saw ships and sea and advised me to get him into the Union Company. She said he would do well. She told me my daughter was a clever girl and also would do well. She would marry when she was between 24 and 26, but that so far there was no man in her life. She said she would do well in marriage and afterwards.” Witness said she had been’ told that the fee was 2/6 and she had paid. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson: When you arrived did you see any other lady? —No. She was in the kitchen while I was waiting and when she went out Mrs Jaxon shut the door. While I was waiting, there was a knock at the door and a young lady came in. The Magistrate: She did not tell your fortune? —She did not. So there is no evidence of her having told your fortune. She told you your daughter’s fortune. Signed a Declaration Mr Steven produced a book which Mrs Hodgson had signed, stating that above the signature appeared a declaration that Mrs Jaxon was a mind reader. Witness said she had signed the book without reading what she signed. Mr Steven: If you had read that you would have seen that Mrs Jaxon set up to read your mind and that is what she did.—She did not read my mind. Mr Steven: She is a shortsighted woman. You can see that?—Yes? Is it possible that, if she were shortsighted, she would not be able to see the lines on your hand?—Yes. Did she say anything to you about your husband? —No. If she says that she told you your husband was in the Government service that would be wrong?—Yes, it would be untrue. She described the place where you live?—No, she said it was a long, light place. The gaol is dark. Did what she told you impose upon you at all?—No. You were quite incredulous? —Yes. Mr Steven submitted that there was no case to answer as witness, in evidence, had said that she had not been imposed upon. Mrs Jaxon had not told her fortune. Charge Dismissed The Magistrate said the crucial point in the charge was deceiving and imposing, but Mrs Hodgson had said that she was not imposed upon. He did not think the charge had been substantiated under the clause in which it had been laid, and on that ground he would dismiss the charge. Mrs Hodgson said she called at Mrs O’Donnell’s place at 8.30 p.m. and was taken into a sittingroom, where two young ladies were waiting. She had to wait about 20 minutes before she was taken into the kitchen wher her hands were placed on a piano stool. Madame Elucidas took one hand and told her she had a clever son who should be a lawyer. Witness had not told her that she had any children. “She did not tell me anything about myself, but said that it was nice to meet such a refreshing lady as I was.” Continuing, witness said she had been told that she had a daughter who was going away and who would do well. She had paid 2/6 for the reading. She had not been asked to sign anything.

The Magistrate: You were not deceived in any way?—No. You went with a view to gettingevidence in the course of your work?— Yes. A “Born Psychologist”

In evidence, defendant said she had confused Mrs Hodgson with another woman, whose daughters she knew. The Magistrate: You told Mrs Hodgson she had a son and a daughter. How do you explain that?—That would be very difficult to explain to your Worship. It is a subject I have studied for the last 40 years. A kind of clairvoyance, I suppose? “I suppose you could call it something like that.” Witness added that she had advertised her readings and the fee and did not think that she was doing anything wrong. She thought that if it was wrong she would have been notified.

The Magistrate: Do you profess to tell the future?—No, I never claimed to do that. lam a born psychologist and after five minutes conversation I can easily get the psychology of my subject by a system I have studied. Can you tell the Senior-Sergeant anything definite about himself? For instance, can you tell what horses are going to win all the races to-day?—No, no. Ido not dabble in horse racing. “If you could there would be more money in that than readings at 2/6 fees,” remarked the Magistrate, who said that the case was a weak one. and the charge had not been substantiated. The charge was dismissed.