MURDER TRIAL AT WELLINGTON

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 192, 14 August 1931, Page 9

MURDER TRIAL AT WELLINGTON

Witness Describes Search of Accused’s Room in Boarding House.

(Special to the "Stax.”) WELLINGTON, August 1 4. MORE WITNESSES called by the Crown were heard to-day at the continuation of the case against George Errol Coats, a labourer, aged twenty-nine, who is charged with the murder of Phillis Avis Symons, aged seventeen, on or about June 26. Mr E. Page, S.M., was on the Bench. Tlie Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. S. K. Macassey) conducted the case, and the accused was represented by Mr C. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr 11. J. V. James.

Isabella M’Kenna, a married woman, living at 43, Adelaide Road, said that the accused called to see her on June 29 in connection wfith letting a room. Witness agreed to let a room at 7s 6d a week. Coats had no luggage with him. During the afternoon of the same day witness left the house and returned home about four o’clock. Accused’s luggage was in the room. Coats himself came in at about 9.30 that night. He stayed at the house until July 6. During that time no girls came to see him and he did not mention the name of any girl to witness. He did not have a dog while he was at the house. Were Hard Up. Olive Irene Claire Smith, a widow’, residing in 40, Adelaide Road, said that she let rooms. On or about April 2 she let a room to Mr and Mrs Coats. The accused was tha man Coats. She recognised a snapshot (produced) as that of Mrs Coats. The accused w r as working on relief works. A few weeks after the pair came to her house witness suspected that the girl was preg- | r.ant. Mrs Coats had very little clothing and the pair appeared to be “ very hard up.” Witness only saw Mrs Coats wearing one black dress and sometimes a pink overall. Witness described the clothing which she had seen Mrs Coats wear. The dress became very shabby towards the finish of their stay. At witness’s house the girl wore a wedding ring and a ring w’ith red stones in it, as well as a string of beads. The girl was very shy and quiet. Witness saw her almost every day. For the first few weeks that the pair were there they spent their evenings in their room and had frequent visitors. One of them was De Maine and another was Glover. There was also a woman whom witness understood to be the accused's sister. During the last six weeks, while the couple were at the house, the accused went out in the evening more frequently than before, and Mrs Coats stayed in her room.

A Demand for Rent. About June 24 witness spoke to Coats about rent, asking if he could let her have the two weeks’ rent owing He replied that he was not earning much money and there was only enough to buy food and if things did not improve he would have to send his wife home and go to a cheaper place. He did not say at that time whether he wanted Mrs Coats to go home. On Friday, June 26, witness could not remember Coats being around the place. About eight o’clock that night she heard the footsteps of two people coming down the stairs. She formed the impression that they were Mr and Mrs Coats. Later on in the evening she heard footsteps returning to the accused’s room. This was some time after 10.30 o’clock.. On Saturday after noon, June 27, she again men .ioned rent to the accused, asking if he could let her have the rent. He said that he had not got the money then, but was expecting to receive some money and that he had sent his wife home last night. That was the first knowledge she had that Mrs Coats had left.

i Did she leave without saying good- > bye to you?—She never mentioned •j leaving at all. ' The girl’s condition at that time was , very noticeable, witness went on. On - Monday, June 29, the accused told her : that he was leaving. He said that he 1 had sent his wife home, although he did not like doing it, as he and the f girl’s mother were not on good terms. - He said that he was going to a place in Brougham Street. He took away his suitcase and that was the last witness saw of him. A carrier called teat afternoon and collected a wooden box which the accused had left outside his room. In Coats’s Room. When witness went up to his room the door was locked. De Maine called in the evening about seven o’clock and witness took the key of the room from him and got a cushion he had come for and gave it to him, retaining the key. Mrs Coats did not come back to clean out the room. Witness did not see her again after June 26. Witness cleaner! out the room. There was a lot of burnt paper in the fireplace. She took all the burnt rubbish and put it in the dustbin. On a duchesse table was a bottle labelled “ Poison.” She also saw a string of beads which Mrs Coats used to wear broken on the floor by the fireolace. The fireplace was pretty well full of ashes. Witness identified a pair of pink slippers and two pairs of boots with clay on them which she had handed to the police. Witness did not search under the mattresses and she did not notice a letter which was subseauently found by Glover. While the accused was at her house he did not have a dog. From April 23 to May 3 witness conducted a small greengrocery business in a shop at the front of the house. She used to get Teeling. one of the boarders, to buy vegetables. She bought six sacks of vegetables and as the sacks were emptied they were put in the coal house. The sacks w’ere numbered and marked when she recived them and the numbers and marking were shown on the invoices (produced). Witness identified five of the sacks (produced). On July IS she was present when the police checked the sacks with the invoices and five corresponded with the invoices. The missing sack, according to the invoices, *as marked 16 and had contained parsnips. The sack produced was similar to the one which had been missing. " Very Affectionate.” Questioned by Mr Treadwell the witness said that she had a good opportunity of seeing and conversing with both Mr and Mrs Coats when thev were living in the house. She spoke < to them separately and together. Your impression of those two people was, I suppose, that they were a < happily married couple?—Yes. And they were both very fond of each other?—He was always very affectionate to her. She thought that the girl might have been rather shy on account of her condition. Her recollection was that

i. on Friday, June 23, Mr and Mrs Coats t went out together. She heard them e when ther passed her door. She fcuul no doubt it was Coats and his wile. , I put it to you that you heard two lots of footsteps return after half-past 1 ten?—l couldn’t say how many re turne ed. but I heard footsteps go to Coats s J room. s I put it to you that those two sets h of footsteps you heard return were those of Mr and >!rs Coats?—Yes. And if you had been ashed the next day ard there had been no talk of e disaster you would have thought it e was Mr and Mrs Coats?—l tr*ok i* lor e granted it was them returning. Accused’s Manner. Are you quite sure you saw on the Saturday?—Yes, I saw him on ' the Saturday, Sunday and Monday. ~ You had a conversation with him “ each day?—Yes. I put it to you he did not appear disturbed or alarmed in any way! His manner seemed quite normal. s Quite friendly with you?—Yes. The last time she saw him was on the Monday. He knocked on her door, walked into the kitchen, and witness ' followed. * You had quite friendly conversation g with him?—Yes. e And his manner on that day was the s normal, friendly manner he has always 7 adopted towards you?—Yes. When you were in your room and they in theirs, could you hear them * talking?—l could hear their voices, but not what they were saying. r Ho Quarrelling. * I put it to you you never heard them : quarrelling while they were living with * you—Never, on any occasion. 1 The witness said that when she received sacks of vegetables she entered s details in a book which was in the possession of the police, j The book was produced. The witness said that while in the greengrocery s business she purchased only six sacks * of vegetables. The rest of supplies came in boxes or small bags. Coats once brought in a sack of wood, but it } was of a different type from those in t Court. Witness did not see Glover at any time after Coats left. Glover , would probably go up to Coats’s room ’ if he did not know Coats had left. If l she had been in the room underneath s Coats she might not have heard him. If she had heard anyone moving about r she would have gone up to see who j was there. And Glover did not come to you and . tell you he had found a letter?—No. ; To Mr Macassey the witness said all . boarders entered the house by the back » door, and she would not take anv 5 notice of visitors, who used to go up- » stairs without seeing her. Glover cou’d quite easily have gone upstairs without > her seeing him. Marked Sacks. j Maurice Eric Teeling, eingle, and a , relief worker, gave evidence as to buvI ing for the previous witness at the marI ket. When he bought vegetables at the auction he gave the initials T. •%nd S. to the auctioneer. The witness savr some of the sacks marked by the storeman. and identified the invoices proI duced as the ones relating to his purchases. The witness said that as ihe sacks became, empty he put them in ’ the coalhouse. These six sacks were the only ones about the premises. According to the invoices the sack of parsnips he bought had the identification number of 16. When the police inspected the sacks at Adelaide Road there were only five there. The missing sack corresponded with the one shown on the invoices. A sack shown to hua was similar to the missing one. Alba Cooze, single, a storeman, at D. Bowie and Co., and Charles Henry Buchanan, a carrier, gave evidence in regard to the marking and delivery of the sacks. Lancelot Lee, a married man. said that he had worked with Coats on the Hataitai relief works. During the latter part of April they were working together on the lower tip and became quite friendly. Coats mentioned that his wife was dead and that he had six children in a home. He also said that / he had a girl and that she was in a certain condition, and mentioned about a lady sending away for some stuff, he understood, to bring about a miscarriage. Buried Dog. About April 27 he was working with the accused on the tip when a young man carrying a sack came along. The man said that the rack contained a dead dog. He his father was a chemist and that the dog had been run over by a car, and that he often got a job to poison dogs from his father. Witness, scratched a hole and buried the dog in the side of the bank. Accused was present. Witnesses gave evidence of visiting several times at Coats’s room. Qp the night of June 27 Coats had told one witness that Phillis had gone back to her brother’s place and would be all right there. • Noel Evan Burbery, a shop assistant, said his father was a chemist. He gave evidence as to taking a dog that had been run over to the tip for burial. At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. (Proceeding.)