MURDER CHARGE

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19159, 16 November 1927, Page 11

MURDER CHARGE

TRUE BILL AGAINST BOAKES. JUDGE'S CHARGE TO GRAND JURY. "I confess to you, Mr Foreman and gentlemen, that as far as I am concerned I have the gravest doubt if a true bill should be found.on the charge of murder. The question is for you, and the responsibility rests on you," said his Honour, Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court yesterday, in his charge to the Grand Jury regarding charges against Charles "William Boakes. The charges against Boakes were as follows: — (1) That he did, on or about June 15th, at Burwood, near Christchurch, murder one, Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarff. (2) That on or about May 16th, at Christchurch, he did unlawfully supply a noxious thing, to wit, ergot, to one, Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarff, knowing that the same was intended to be unlawfully used or employed to procure the miscarriage of the said Ellen Gwendoline Isobel Scarff. The Grand Jury retired at 11.15 a.m. and returned at 3.52 p.m. with a true bill on both charges. The time occupied in reaching a decision being the longest taken by a. Grand Jury for some years. That interest in the case has not waned was shown by the full public gallery. The crowd waited until 3.15 p.m., when his Honour retired temporarily, and they then gradually drifted away. Boakes will come up for trial at 10.15 a.m. on Monday. When a person was indicted for murder the law required that no other charge should be included in the indictment, said his Honour, and'accordingly separate indictments would be presented, one of murder and the other of supplying a drug. "The case has created considerable public excitement and attention from the time when the woman's body • was found down to to-day," said his Honour. "And it is my duty to warn you to dismiss from your minds all you have heard or read regarding the case before coming into Court. There have been newspaper articles and expressions of opinion, and you must disregard these and also any opinions that you yourselves may, perhaps, have been entertaining. You will approach the case, I am sure, without allowing yourselveß to be influenced at all save by the evidence placed before you in the juryroom on oath. You are not called on to determine the guilt or innocence of the prisoner on' either charge. That is the duty of the common jury if you find a true bill, but your duty is to find whether, on the evidence placed before you, a common jury would be justified in proceeding to a conviction." Traversing the history of the case and reviewing the evidence, his Honour said that regarding the charge of supplying a noxious drug, evidence was given by 1 two witnesses—one a chemist's assistant named King, and the other a Mrs McClure. The only direct evidence was that of King, the evidence of Mrs McClure being that the woman Scarff was "taldng drugs for. a purpose. There was a letter which had not been traced to the hands of Boakes, and the statements if. contained were not evidence against him.

Kegarding the charge of murder,. the body of the woman Scarff was_ found at "1.80 p.m. on June 15th, in the scrub at Burwood, by a boy named Eric Mugford. The medical evidence was clear that the woman died of wounds inflicted with a blunt instrument. The injuries were of dreadful character, there being 18 in all. Obviously some of them were sufficient to cause death, and according to the evidence they were not self-inflicted. There was evidence that on Juno Bth at 6.30 a.m., Boakes, a taxi-driver, took the woman Scarff and her suitcase from Mrs Wood's home, Cashmere, where she was employed as a domestic servant. The direct evidence of that was by the morning milkman who alleged that he saw Boakes arrive and the woman enter the taxi with the suitcase. The taxi then drove away. On the same date, at night, according to the conductor of the tram from Burwood to the. Square as 10.30 Boakes boarded the tram at Burwood, close to the scene where the body was found. The murder occurred a week later. The evidence of the conductor was corroborated by the motorman. On the same night, at 11.30, a porter at the Federal Hotel admitted a man and a woman, the latter giving the name of Miss Armstrong. The woman remained and the man _ went away. The porter did not positively recognise the man. The woman, who was Ellen Scarff, remained a boarder until June 14th, on the last hour of which date, or thereabouts, according to the evidence, she was. murdered. On June 14th, in the afternoon, she left the hotel in a taxi driven by a man named Neate. On June 9th the woman ScaTff met another woman'named Amelia Watts on the riverbank,- and the witness deposed to a conversation that had taken place between them. But the law was such that a conversation was not admitted in legal procedure. On the 9th Boakes, in answer to a telephone message, went to'the Federal Hotel and saw the woman Scarff. During the interview, deposed the hotel clerk, Muriel Usher t Boakes was wearing a military overcoat, short, and reaching only to the knees. She saw him some time in July wearing a military overcoat much longer and fuller., A good deal depended on the identification of the coat. On June 11th a man named Prisk saw the woman Scarff at the Colosseum garage and deposed that Boakes spoke to her there. That was the last occasion, according to the evidence, on which Boakes was ever seen in the company of the deceased. It was not shown by the evidence that Boakes was ever in her company after that moment.

Tiie evidence of the-movements of the woman, continued his Honour, showed that on June 12th she visited one Alice Parr at 10.30 a.m., staying till after 5 jj.in. There was no evidence as to June 18th, but on June 14th, Xeate, the taxi-driver, took the woman Scnrff from the Federal Hotel. That was the last seen of her by any person found who could give evidence until her body was discovered by Mugford on June loth. Mugford, who was looking after some cows, saw the body lying in the broom patch hear Burwood, and called the Rev. Mr Tobin to the scene. Mr Tobin satisfied himself that the woman was dead. That was at 1.30 p.m. The evidence of a watchmaker who examined the woman's wristlet watch stated that it was wound up at 10 or 11 in the morning and stopped at 12.27. Had the watch gone on without interference it would have continued to work for 30 hours. The inference was that violence caused the watch to stop at that hour, showing that/if the evidence was correct, the murder was committed during the first hour of June I.lth. On June 16th a man called Davidson, found a spanner of Continental

type, in a gorse bush at the scene of the mur'der. There was blood, on the spanner, but there was nothing to connect Boakes with it. On June 25th a .military overcoat, stained with blood, was found by one Leversedge in the scrub near the scene of the murder. There was no doubt that Boakes wore a military overcoat, but it was common knowledge that after the war the Government stock of military overcoats was got rid of, and the coats were distributed to a great many people who were wearing them'to-day. "You must consider what is to connect Boakes with the actual , crime," said his Honour. "That is the, crux of the whole question. You must satisfy yourselves if it can be reasonably said that he was the murderer, and you must dismiss everything but the evidence in the indictment." The evidence that ho boarded the car at Burwood was •not evidence that he was on/the scene of the murder, but that he travelled to town as a passenger. There was nothing to show that Boakes ever saw the woman after June 11th, and that was three clear days before the murder. Neither the spanner nor the military overcoat would appear to have been traced to Boakes' possession. Those were the facts and the jury must consider whether the Crown could rely on a connexion between the spanner, the coat, and Boakes. The charge of supplying noxious drugs was relevant to the major charge, said his Honour, but only to show motive. If it was shown reasonably that he desired the deceased nit of the way then the jury could consider the other facts in relation which pointed to Boakes as being the murderer. But the evidence concerning the drugs could not be evidence that would prove that he was the murderer. What was the motive! That was'the leading factor to be considered in a charge of murder, and the jury must consider if there was any evidence as to motive apart from the supplying of the drugs. Mere suspicion was not enough and that was particularly bo with reference to a chaTge of murder.