CHARGE OF MURDER.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18405, 12 August 1931, Page 8

CHARGE OF MURDER.

DEATH OF A GIRL. GEORGE COATS IN COURT. THE WELLINGTON SENSATION. (Continued from page 7.) (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Murray Symons, machinist, a brother of 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. Accused Visited by Girl. Cecilia Winifred Sime, single, living with her mother in Abel-Smith Street, said Coats was a boarder in their house from August 25, 1930, to March 14. 1931. During this period a young girl used to come to see Coats. Witness identified snapshots of Phillis Symons as the girl. On the day accused left their house the girl was there and assisted Coats to pack up. The girl seemed to have rather a sad disposition. Coats did not have a dog when he lived at witness' house. During the last month the girl used to some to the house for Coats about every two days and for the last fortnight about every day. To Mr Treadwell, witness said that until the day when Coats went away 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 Grlfiln. married, residing in Kent Terrace, said accused stayed at her house for about three weeks In March. He was living with a girl whom witness thought to be Mrs Coats. Objection by Counsel. Mr Treadwell objected to witness being asked to identify deceased from a small photograph (produced). The objection was noted. Witness said Goats at no time said he was married He said that he had three children in an orphanage. While at witness's house the girl was not in good health, and stayed in her room, and would not eat anything. She kept entirely to herself, and seemed very quiet. When Coats finally left he said he was taking a higger house and Mrs Coats would look after the children.

Stephen Tooker Parker Doidge. married, Brougham Street, a labourer, said Coats came to stay at his place in March, accompanied by a woman. He recognised a 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. When witness returned to Wellington on • April 14 this year he renewed the acquaintance with accused, who was living al 140 Adelaide Road with a girl named Phillis Symons. Accused had a sister named Evie, and witness went with her to accused's room, and Coats introduced the girl Symons as his wife. Witness visited accused almost every day. After about five weeks accused spoke to witness about the girl Symons being pregnant. There was some remark made about an article given by Evie to the girl, but witness could not remember distinctly what it was. Not Telling All He Knew. Mr Page said witness gave the impression that he was not telling all he knew, and when witness did not reply to still later questions Mr Macassey submitted that he was hostile. Mr Macassey, to witness: What did Evie say to Glover? Witness: If anything happened to Phillis would he help to bury her. What did Glover say?—He said “What do you think I am?” Witness had said that he and Evie Coats used to play cards at the house, and there was also a man named Glover there.

Further questions regarding Phillis having come in one night about June 3 and lying down, and a reason having been given that she had a sore neck, were also not answered, and Mr Macassey made application that witness be treated as hostile. Mr Treadwell submitted that the court had no power to allow crossexamination of a Crown witness at such proceedings, and the court adjourned to allow counsel to product authorities.

After luncheon Mr James presented authorities to confirm his contention that a witness in preliminary proceedings could not be treated as hostile. He submitted that de Maine was not hostile, but was answering questions to the best of his memory. He also submitted that the Crown could not refresh witness’ memory.

Mr Macassey submitted that it was clear thjs witness was hostile, and that the same rule applied in this court as in any other. It was in the Magistrate's discretion. Witness Obviously ‘'Fencing.” Mr Page ruled against Mr James on the question of procedure. As regarded the more important question of whether witness was hostile Mr Page said he was obviously fencing. Mr Page said if necessary he would give counsel permission to refer to the statements previously made and ask his explanation of them. (Proceeding.)