Adjourned Inquest.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11713, 18 August 1902, Page 7

Adjourned Inquest.

The inquest into the death of an illegitimate child at Aramoho was continued on Saturday. Mr Cony appeared to watch t±ie proceedings on behalf of Mr Butterfield. Frederick Augustus Butterfield stale;! t'l. t he was an auctioneer, and previously was a photographer in Temuka, where he had lived for a little over eight years. Was a married man with one child. Knew the Biot!.er of the deceased child (Lily Hooper): she had been in witness's employ for about 2£ years. She left witness's service only about, two days before she came up to Ara-moho—-that would be in April. Witness knew, through his wife, as to the girl's condition at an early stage. When Aspnallcams to witness he said Hooper had accused witness of being the father of the child. That was on the Sunday before the girl came up to Aramoho. Witness then denied it. saying it was false, and that, he had never had anything to do with the girl. Was then asked if he would repeat that before the father, and witness said he would. They went together—that is, Aspinall and witness—over to Hooper's that same day. The. girl's father appeared to be very much agitated, and witness again denied the accusation. The girl's father then got very wild;, and said: "If the girl is not taken away. I shall bring a criminal action against you." Aspinall then spoke to witness, saying that perhaps it would be best to take the girl away and thus, keep ib quiet. . Witness thought-that if anything public was made it would interfere with his business, and that it would be best to have her takeif away. No one knew in Temuka then but themselves.' It was not until the Sunday niffht that witness's, wife knew that witness was accused of the parentage. He told her of the accusation and that Hooper wanted the girl taken away. Witness also told his wife what Hooper had threatened, and this upset her very much. Witness's wife finally agreed that he should take the girl away with himsolf -rather than have publicity given to the matter. On the way to Christchurch Mrs Butterfield complained of being ill, and said she could not go any farther. It was quite true that he purposely went a different way to the Temuka Station to avoid being seen with the girl. Wrote a letter to his sister, which it appeared she did not receive., Ooniinunicated with her again, stating that he was arriving with somebody. Took the tickets—one for himself and the other for the girl—as for Mr and Missßutt«rfield. This was at the girl's suggestion. Witness's sister knew they were arriving, for Mrs McKenzie sent a wire, which witness received when on the Rotomahana. It was to this effect: "Missed train. Come on." Mrs Butt&rfield stayed with some friends in Chrislciiureh. Told Mr McKenzie the circumstances, but not his wife. Told McKenzie zo that he could tell his wife ss much as he thought proper. When in Wellington the girl stayed at a. private hotel, and witness stayed at Chute's. While in Wellington- took the girl to the door of the theatre, but did not go into the building with her.- She wished to go to the theatre because she was down-hearted. On arrival at Aramoka, took the girl to McKenzie's, stating that; he would look after the expenses, and that he would look to the girl's father for a return of the money. Stayed about two days in Wanganui and then went back to .Temuka. Did not see. the girl's parents when he got back, as he was not on good terms with them owing to the accusation. Told AspinaH about paying the expenses and that he •would look to the father for the recovery of, the money when he (witness) had proved himself innocent. Endeavoured to find out Jrom the girl alter leaving Temuka who the father was, and said he would divulge it to no one but his wife; The girl would nothing, but only cried. Had no suspicions as to who was the father, and considered that she conducted herself properly, there being no suggestion that she was fast. Instructed Mr Aspinalli, as his solicitor, to <?o and get a written statement from the girl, and paid him for getting it. Mr Aspinall had the statement at present, and witness had no objection to producing it. The statement he got had not the effect he desired/ which was ta fix a particular date as to. the accusation against him, so that lie would ?je in a position to refute same. Mr Aspinall stated that when they asked her to sign it she cried and ran' out of the room. They brought her back and made lieu sign it. Then heard from friends that the police were trying to find out where the girl was and could not. Witness then informed Constable Gillespie where the girl was,-and told him all about.it and that he had sent her to Wanganui. Up to that time -the detectives had not visited his sister's. " After receiving a letter from his brother-in-law, came to Wanganui to see and hear for himself wjiat the girl had said about him. Said to the girl "You had better tell who the father is and save all this trouble," or something to that effect. She said she couldn't tell who the father was. Asked her if she still intended to accuse him of being the father. She said "No." Asked her if she would make that statement in the presence of witnesses, and she said "Yes." Then engaged Mr Cony, and the statement prduced was what transpired, Only spoke to the girl once during the interview, and that was at the conclusion, when he asked her to divulge the name of the father; but Mr Cony said there was vo need to ask that question then. May have mentioned to Mr Cony that Mr Aspinall advised him to see a solicitor if anything cropped up. A friend of his advised him to try and get a written confession from tho girl ; it was not Mi' Aspinall. Came up to Wanganui with the intention of trying to get the statement. Before he left Wanganui he gave his sister £2. Did not tell her it was from the girl's father. She imust have misunderstood. Said he would tiy and get the money from the father. It was rumoured about in Temuka soon after he left for Wanganui that witness was the father of the child; the report was spread about by the girl's brother. When witness went back a second time he sent a letter, enclosing the confession, to .Mr Aspinall, who subsequently forwarded it to Mr Hooper. Told the latter in the letter that he (wit-ness) had been to considerable expense, and that he would look to him for tfro money. Was informed by his sister that the child was dead, and afterwards received a wire that tlie child was dead and asking for money. Forwarded £10, intending to instruct* Mr Aspinall to get it from Mr Hooper. Sent the money because he had promised his sister that she would be paid. By the Coroner: When witness left Teniuka with the girl knew that the g-'rl accused him. Thought it was no use being unfriendly with her, as she could make it unpleasant for him if she liked. Did not in any way coax or persuade the girl from the time he left Temuka till he got to Wanganui to contradict the statement she had made, and did not think she would alter her statement. She had never accused him to his face of being the father of the child. Did not speak to the girl about the subject either in the train or in the steamer. She did not seem well, and he left her to herself. She was somewhat peculiar at times, and would not answer questions. Had never had any intimacy with the girl on tiny occasion, and'denied absolutely that he was the father of the child. Looked upon the girl as a child. Had been mamed about four years. On the Sunday when wit-

ness was first accused, Mr Hooper asked him if he would face the girl and deny it. Witness replied that he would. He did not bring the girl out to meet him, though she was in the next room.

This was' all the evidence,

The Coroner then summed up. He said the que-t:oTi the jury hod to decide was not whether Mr Butttciield was the father of the child. That might be the subject of further investigation, and came in indirectly. The question was: Did the evidence satisfy the jury as to what caused the death of the child? The circumstances of the case were very peculiar indeed. It was not necessary for him to say anything to> the jury with regard to the evidence as to the parentage of tho" child. According to the evidence of Dr. Hatherlv, who attended the girl, the child was apparently healthy when bom and up to the time of its; death. The doctor said the child might have been smothered by the mother involuntarily pressing it to her breast in her sleep, but he did not think so. Dr. Hatherly added that death might have been caused by convulsions, and in this Dr. Innes concurred.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after a few moments.' consideration found, in accordance with the medical evidence, that the child died of convulsions.