CHARGE OF MURDER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 190, 13 August 1931, Page 8

CHARGE OF MURDER

THE KILBIRNIE SENSATION CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH OF PHYLLIS SYMONS PRELIMINARY HEARING OF EVIDENCE COMMENCED [ Per Press Association. 1 WELLINGTON, Aug. 12. The preliminary hearing of evidence against George Errol Coats, a labourer, aged 29, on a charge of murdering Phyllis Avis Symons, aged 17, whose body was found buried in the Town Belt at Kilbirnie, Wellington, was commenced in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Long before 10 o’clock a crowd including a number of women, had gathered outside the doors of the Court building, and waited patiently in the rain until they were admitted. The public gallery was packed during the hearing and many were unable to to obtain admittance. It is expected that the hearing will be a protracted one. The accused sat in the dock, and although he rarely looked at the witnesses he appeared to be listening carefully to their evidence. Among the exhibits were garments said to have belonged to the dead girl, letters, and many photographs of the place ■where the body was found.

Mr Macassry Is appearing for the Crown, and Mr C. A. L. Treadwell and Mr H. J. V. James for the accused.

A large crowd waited for some time in the rain outside before the doors opened and the Court was packed for the hearing. At the outset Mr Treadwell made an appeal against the preliminary hearing taking place in open Court and against the publication of the evidence given in the preliminary proceedings this morning. He said his application was made in the interests of a fair trial, which he contended, might be prejudiced in view of the fact that the jury, if the ease were sent on to a jury, would be Irawn from the general public whose ninds would already be affected by the evidence given. Mr Treadwell said that mly one side of the case was likely » be presented, and there was not likely to be much in the way of cross-exam-ination. He contended that the Art glared power in the Magistrate’s hands to make the order he applied for. and he quoted authorities from England. Such application might not have been made before in a case of this kind in New Zealand, but the time was fully ripe when a Magistrate should make a declaration in regard to those cases. In the event of the Magistrate not being able to see his way to make the order asked for. Mr Treadwell asked that at the least the Magistrate might direct against the publication of any evidence to which Mr .Tames or himself might take exception as not admissible if the Magistrate were of that opinion. Invariable Practice. Mr Page said it had been for many years an invariable practice in Courts where summary justice was administered to conduct the proceedings in public. If he gave prisoner the benefit of the application Mr Treadwell had now made he would find it difficult to refuse a similar application in almost any case of moment. While he would not agree to direct against the publication of all the evidence to which counsel objected as inadmissible. Mr Page said there hail been cases where evidence admitted in the Lowe r Court had been rejected in the Supreme Court as inadmissible. He would consider counsel’s application and hear any objection he might raise, and if there was a doubt of the admissabilitv of the evidence he would make an order. Mr Maeassey then notified that he did not propose to make any opening statement, but would proceed to call evidence. Edmund Walter Dinnie. senior-ser-geant in charge of the Criminal Registration Branch at Wellington, said he took photographs of the relief works job at Haitaitai Valley on Julv 13. One was of an impression where it was pointed out to him the girl’s body had lam. Witness on Julv 17 took further nhotos ind certain measurements. Further photos were also taken on the morning of July 21. Witness produced all the photos. John Maxwell Grant, a survevor of the Land ami Survey Department, said that on July 27 he accompanied Detective Bavlis from 140 Adelaide Road *o the spot where the bodr of the girl was alleged to have been found. He took observations and measurements of various routes on the way. He produced a plan showing the shortest routes between the two places. Mother’s Evidence. The mother of the girl. Mary Sophie Symons, was the next witness. She said she had six children, of whom Phvllis was the fourth. She was born or. December S. 1913. and attended various schools in Napier and Wellington. leaving school at the age of 14 when in the fifth standard. She was rather backward in learning, but was otherwise a normally healthful girl. Apart from doing two weeks’ work last Christmas the girl had stayed at homo. Witness remembered the relief works being in progress in Mortimer Terrace, and had made tea for the men on the work. Some of them visited the house to get the tea. Witness met the accused Coats about this time, the daughter introducing him to her. At this stage witness became unwe 1 for a time and had to be removed from the Court. When she returned she said Coats was one of the relief workers. She remembered returning from the pictures one night in October and found Coats and her daughter standing on the top step of the gate. She remembered Phyllis leaving home on a Sunday at the beginning of March. The girl had been a little fussv that day. but it was reelly nothing. Witness was not well and would not let Phvllis out that day. As a result of that difference thn daughter left home. Witness did not know when* her daughter had gone, but she had taken very little clothing. The clothing was produced, most of which witness identified. The proceedings were interrupted meanwhile by her again becoming hysterical.

Continuing her evidence, witness Identified the handwriting in some letters as that of her daughter, and also a snapshot. Objection Overruled.

Mr Treadwell objected to this evidence, but the Magistrate allowed it. A

letter in ber daughter’s handwriting was also identified by witness, who said that when the girl was at home she wore a bead necklace, but had no rings. On the night of July 12th she recognised the deceased’s body at the

There was no cross-examination. George Henry Symons, motor-body builder, said he received a letter about July 5 from a man named Glover. It was in his daughter’s handwriting. He made a complaint to the police the same day. He did not see his daughter alive after she left home in March. The girl was inclined to be backward, and had childish ways. Her disposition was quiet. Mr Treadwell did not cross-examine.

Mrytle Rene Lamb, a married sister of the deceased, said she did not know the accused. She detailed a number of garments taken away from home by the deceased, and identified certain clothing produced as having belonged to Phyllis.

Murray Symons, machinist, and brother of the deceased, said he had met Coats at the pictures about September of last year. Witness had been with his sister, and when Coats saw them he came and sat beside them. Cecilia Winifred Sime, single, living with her mother in Abel Smith Street, said that Coats was a boarder in their house from August 25, 1930, to March 4. 1931. During this period a young girl used to come to see Coats. Witness identified the snapshot of Phyllis Symons as the girl. On the day accused left their house the girl was there and assisted Coats to pack up. The gi”l seemed of rather sad disposition to witness. Coats did not have a dog when he lived at witness’s house. During the last month the girl used to come to the house for Coats about every other day, and for the last fortnight about every day. To Mr Treadwell: Witness said that until the day when Coats went awav the girl always stayed at the front door. Mr Treadwell: As far as you know while you were there this girl and Coats were always on friendly terms. Witness: Yes. Violet Griffin, married, residing at 75 Kent Terrace, said that accused stayed at her bouse about three weeks in March. He was living with the girl. Witness thought she must be Mrs Coats. Identification by Photo. Mr Treadwell objected to witness being asked to identify deceased from the small photo (produced). The objection was noted. Witness said tha* Coats at no time said he was married. He said he had three children in an orphanage. While at witness’ house the girl was not in good health, but stayed in her room and would not eat anything. She kept entirely to herself and seemed very quiet. When he finally left he said he was taking a bigger house and Mrs Coats would look after the children. Stephen Jooker Parker Doidge, married, labourer, said that Coats came to stay at his place in March, accompaniied by a woman. We recognised the snapshot. The pair only stayed a week. Coats did not have a dog. Arthur De Maine, waiter, said he had known Coats since about 1918. when the latter was a steward. Witness was away from Wellington for some time, and returned the last time on April 14 of this year. He renewed his acquaintance with the accused, who was living at 140 Adelaide Road, with a girl named Phyllis Symons. The accused had a sister named Evie, and witness went with her to the accused’s room in Adelaide Road. Coats introduced the girl Symons as “his wife for the time being.” Witness visited the accused almost every day. About five weeks after the first visit, the accused spoke to witness about the girl Symons being in a certain condition. Witness and Evie used to play cards at the house at night, and there was also there a man named Glover. Evie gave Coats a syringe and a recipe. There was some remark made about the syringe, but witness could not remember distinctly what it was. He thought it was something about a miscarriage. The Duty of the Witness. A little later on Mr Page said that the witness gave the impression that he was not telling all he knew. He was there to tell the truth, and all the truth, and to answer the questions pur to him. “Do you understand that duty?” asked Mr Page.

Witness: “Yes.” Mr Maeassey: “Do you remember Evie making any remark to Glover in the presence of the accused?” Witness did not answer. “Can you not recall that?’’—‘ ‘I think there was some remark by Evie to Glover about the girl’s condition.” “What was it?’’ Witness again did not reply. Mr Maeassey: “I submit the witness is hostile.” Air Page: “I would like you to proceed a little further. You may be right about it. Just see if you can get what you want without referring to the police statement/’ Mr Maeassey (to the witness): “What did Evie say to Glover?”—“lf anything happened to Phyllis would he help to bury hes»”

“What did Glover say?”—“He said, ‘ What do you think I am?’ ” “Were those his words?”—“l think they were. ” Mr Maeassey: “Did Evie like Phyllis?”—“Oh, I think she liked her in a way.”

“Did you hear Evie tell Coats what he ought to do with Phyllis?”—“l think she said something; that she ought to go home.” “Were those her words? Surely you can give us something more definite than that. ” The witness was silent until the Magistrate told him to answer the question. “I can’t exactly remember,” he then replied. Witness said he heard Evie instructing Coats in the use of the syringe. Mr Maeassey: “On whom?”—“I think it was on Phyllis.” Counsel Dissatisfied. Evie left Wellington, he said, on May 7. Witness continued his visits to Adelaide Road, and he remembered going on one occasion about June 3. He remembered Phyllis coming in and she looked a bit white—but she was always white. “What did she do?”—“She just lay down.” “Did you see what she did with her hand?”—“She just put her hand up to the back of her neck.” On the following night when speaking to witness Coats said that Phyllis ’ neck was sore. Mr Maeassey: “Did he say how it happened?” Witness was silent, and Mr Maeassey made an application for the witness to be declared hostile. Mr Treadwell said he knew nothing, of course, except that apparently the witness was not answering questions as Air Maeassey would like him to. “I submit the Court has no power to allow cross-examination of a Crown witness at such a proceeding.” The Court was adjourned until this afternoon in order to allow counsel to produce authorities. “Fencing with Questions.” When the Court resumed Air James submitted that the Crown had no right to treat the witness as hostile and cross-examine him, as the hearing was only a preliminary inquiry. The witnesses the Crown was calling were not necessarily Crown witnesses. It was merely an inquiry to get at the truth. Counsel said he had been unable to discover any precedent for the application made by Air Alacassey. If ths Court held there was the right to declare the witness hostile, counsel submitted that the witness could not be regarded as hostile merely because he made a different statement from that made to the police. There was nothing before the Court to show that the witness had not given his evidence to the best of his recollection. Air Alacassey said he considered the witness was hostile in his demeanour. The questions put to him concerned matters which he could not have forgotten. It was submitted in regard to declaring the witness hostile that the same rule applied as anywhere else. The Afagistrate said he knew of no authority for the proposition that a different rule should apply at such an inquiry. It seemed to him quite early in De Afaine’s evidence that he was obviously fencing with the questions put to him. He thought it was his duty to say that he regarded the witness as answering the questions in a hostile manner. If necessary he would grant permission to refer to statements previously made by the witness. However. he though it was better to extract his evidence without that means. Cause of Neck Injury. Continuing his evidence, De Maine said that Coats told him that Phyllis was complaining about her neck being sore. Air Alacassey: “Did he tell you why her neck was sore?”—“Yes.” “What did he say?”—“He just said her neck was sore. ’ ’ ”Did he tell you what was the cause of it?”— Witness hesitated until Air Afacassey asked him to speak up, and he then said: “He said something about a hit over the neck.” “Did he say what with?” Witness again did not answer, and the Alagistrate warned him that ho must answer the questions. Air Afacassey: “Did he say how Phyllis’ neck was sore?”—“Yes; he said he just tapped her over the back of the neck.” “Did he say what with?” —“Yes. with a bit of wood.” “Did he say where he did this?”--“Yes, at Hataitai.” “Did he say what effect this had on Phyllis at Hataitai?”—“He said it just stunned her a little, that was all.” “Did he say what Phyllis said after she came to after being stunned?”— “I can’t recall it.” “Did he tell you why he had gone to Hataitai with Phyllis?”—“l can’t remember.’ ’ “Did he tell you why he hit her? — “I understood it was to bring about a certain result.” “Is that honestly what he said?’’ — “Yes.” “You say that on your oath?”— “Yes.” “Good Place to Bury a Dog.” Air Alacassey: “Did he make any reference to relief works at Hataitai the night he hit Phyllis over the neck?” The witness was silent for some time and when asked by Air Afacassey why he did not answer, replied: “I am just trying to think.” He then said that with reference to the works at Hataitai, Coats had told,him it would be a good place to bury a dog. Air Alacassey: “Did he say anything about Phyllis at Hataitai?”

The witness remained silent, and was then asked: “Did he make any remark about the earth that came down in the tipping?’’—“Yes.” “What was it about?”—“About Phvllis.”

“What did he say?”—The witness hesitated for some time before he replied: “Something about Phyllis being there and hundreds of tons of earth coming down.” “Did he say why he took her there?’’ There was no answer ‘‘What was the connection between the earth and Phyllis?” Again there was no reply. Air Maeassey was given permission to refer to the statements previously made by the witness.

Witness said he advised Coats to send the girl home, and not to be silly. On June 25, a Thursday, witness was assisting at a tobacconist’s shop in Newtown, kept by Jack Glover. He met the. accused that afternoon, and was with him until about half-past four. Coats then asked witness to buy food for the evening meal at his house, saying that he himself was going to see a friend at Hataitai to ask him to leave out a shovel with which te

bury a dog. The accused caught ? No. 2 tram. So far as witness knew Coats had never had a dog. Witness went to the Adelaide Road house, Phyllis being there at the time. The accused returned at about halfpast 5 o’clock, and, in reply to witness, said that he had got oi. all right. His friend was going to leave out a shcvel. Glover and a man named Lee came in after tea. Phyllis said they were leaving the house next day, and said something about rent. Witness and the other men left at tbout 11 o’clock. That was the last time he saw Phyllis. The following night Coats visited witness at the shop. On learning that witness would not be leaving until closing time, he said he would not wait, and remarked that Phyllis had gone home. De Alaine said he saw accused on various occasions following the day when it was said the girl had gone home. Between that date and July 6, when he was arrested, accused had not mentioned Phyllis’ name. When Coats moved from 140 Adelaide Road on Monday, June 29 he gave witness a key to get a cushion and give it to the landlady. Afc Maeassey: The day or two prior to arrest did accused mention anything to you?—Yes he said something about trying to get to Auckland. Air Afacassey: The day or two prior back to when he told you about hitting her over the head with a piece of wood at Hataitai. Did he tell you what she said when she came to?—I can’t recall. “Did he tell you why he had gon? over to Hataitai with Phyllis?”—He said something about. . .er ." . ATr Alacassey here asked permission to refer witness to a statement he had made to fhe police. Witness was hostile on Air Treadwell’s submission. The Magistrate directed that the evidence which now followed, where a portion of the statement referred to witness, should not be published. Evidence given in this way lasted for about twenty minutes. Air Treadwell said he understood from the evidence that at the time th? girl was alleged to take the received tap on the back of the head she was living under the same roof as Coats, and tha't she continued so to live as though they were a happily married couple. Witness agreed. About these statements you made to the police, how many were there, asked Air Treadwell.—Three.

When you made the first one how long were you at the police station?— From about 8.15 p.m. to 11.15 p.m. How many were there?—There was Detective Baylis. Yes, but just tell me how many there were?—Well a tall gentleman

kept coming in. And on the second occasion how long were you at the station? —From 7.30 to 12.30.

Now, I’m not suggesting anything improper about the police, but vou were a witness this morning. What did the police say to you at lunch-time, directly after the adjournment?—They told me to tell the truth.

Did they warn you?—They just advised me to tell the truth, or it would go bad for me. With regard to these allegations or killing in the statement. How did you look upon what Coats was telling you? —I thought he was just joking with

John David Glover, machinist, said in answering Air Alacassey that he had known Coats about a year. His wife died on Anzac Day, 1930. He told witness he had six children in the or phanage. He first mentioned Phyllis when they were working outside her place before Christmas he told witness some time that the girl was living with him. Questioned further, witness admitted that Coats had spoken of the girl’s condition and that he gave her some pills. Later Coats had moved to Kent Terrace, where he lived with Phillis. Witness visited them three or four times a week at this address. He remembered Phillis being ill there with gastric flu or something like that. “Did accused say anything in reference to Phillis’ condition when they were in Adelaide Road?” asked Air Afacassey.—“He said he’d use a needle on her, and if she did die he knew a good place to bury her.” “What did he say about the relief works at Hataitai?” —“He said that hundreds of tons went over there every day. If you did put anyone there nobody would ever And them.” “When he talked to you like that, what did you say to him?”—“l told him that the police might find out.” “Did he ever say anything about low tide?”—“He said that if you buried a dog on the beach, in six weeks there’d be nothing.” Witness went on to give evidence about the period when accused’s sister Evie came down from Auckland. She had told accused not to break the syringe. It was taken down from the top of a cupboard, Coats having said ’that he had got a syringe “to fix up Phyllis.” Witness gathered that Coats

had got it from his sister. Coats also had an envelope marked “strictly private” which he told Phyllis to put in a drewer and not to lose.

“One night do you remember seeing accused with his head buried in his hands?”—“Yes.”

“How did he appear?”—“Worried.” “Did he get up and say something to Phyllis?”—“Yes, he said ‘get the needle, Phil, I’m going to do it to you now. ’

After further evidence had been given witness said that Coats had asked him on a later occasion whether if Phyllis died he would help to bury her? His reply had been: “What the d do you think I am?’’ The Court then adjourned.