NOT GUILTY.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19166, 24 November 1927, Page 11

NOT GUILTY.

pItAtOFBOAKES. ON MINOR CHARGE. lasting three days, yesterday aftornoon, of Ellen Gwendoline at Burwood, on June iStfc m,«* if no * act to conne ?i o ? articular spanner which **"£, rf the accused," said his ■:**£*£ Justice Adams who ' Urease, a* «" end of **" f tie jury. "You Y£gZ some gaps in the evi--1 **Jt reasonable inferences of ■'f*L&. Sore you are able to (Kfthere is any proved con•lKeW»en the accused and the : tS'& evidence," he said, «*f J i ranch care as I am able "*LI to Tt in cases of this kind, */RfW been asked to rule that '•L 1 -?! evidence to go before Kt "iD and to make a direction *£»£* effect. I confess I I < ttf tad some hesitation in the 1 I have decided to leave ' The question, on the [ !£Z before you, and bearing ' '"hrf its limitations, and the i!T«.f jnch evidence, also what . £5? Mugford had to say, is |y £2,ou can say that you axe ,*£ beyond all reasonable , Sfiftt no other conclusion can < fiE£d at ttan that * accus ISJofthe crime with which he fflarged. If you find that .|K you will find him guilty ■,SfJ Sherwise you will acquit '' TeJerday ™* occupied with the adL- 0 f tho Crown Prosecutor and Sf«i' theaefcncotothc:iury ' and Vftilri summing-up. Mr A. T. Elly, for the Crown, spoke for 20 y a while tho address of the counL'tho defence, Mr C. S. Thomas, Lied an hour and forty minutes. |Hononr'» summing-up took an hour 11 quarter, and thejury retired at jjpjn,, returning at 5 p.m. with a ,rfkt of not guilty. 'jtaua Interest has been taken in the bAlhas been the case during the Mof the trial, the public galleries Ai>onrt were packed. There was ileue silence when the jury returned, Allien the foreman delivered tho a- higdonour said: "I confess I f agree with your verdict." W'tkj minor charge, that of supplyfripioiu drngd, Boakes was remandttfjippear at tho Supreme Court on Mala 30th, at 10.15 a.m., bail being ityltd uThis own recognisance of 'ftm. Dliectly tho verdict was prowm Boakes walked out of tho dock iWblWdy. A crowd awaited Boakes's 'ijmn with interest, but he left tho Cr) by»private exit. ■ Crown Prosecutor, iMtttiuo case for tho Crown, and lira R-'Thomas, with him as second &Bel, Mr M. J. Burns, appeared for !*«»< ff'** 'The Charges. &steww charged that hp did, on murder Ellen, GwenWMtScarff, and that on or supply a noxious 'fflFPmw one Ellen Gwendoline that the same used. . tf was dealt with at w accvlse d pleading not ' SP* r ß e * Address. said that the observa*S]P^^ 0 ma^e c o ncern i n g tne and to the point, 'mSbS •opened the case for the .»S»Srpnt it fully to the jury. I More not repeat anything i>sald. There was one "Jease, however, that he |< This was in respect of ng, who, the jury rememIgtback on the evidence pthe lower Court. Even jne'to tho conclusion that Übelieve King's evidence it would not reJjMe given by him in tho tSey must conclude that e« had completely disap>ust therefore dismiss it 'to be remembered that Jupreme Court had made 'Qcioug a charge against eant James Bickordike as t,or whieh Eoakes was as clear that King's story ,0f; belief because his evi»nalatent. The jury must Won of tho police in such ad to make enquiries into Mes. It was their duty wly fair to witnesses with Pe dealing and to take »r it was impossible to verbal evidence. Theret a statement for record to assure that there was > what was said. A witfoaition wrote out a state,aa King had done. If *ere believed, the police go out of business so far Of statements was con--1 would never be a case sss could not go back on tog's story were believed. r*,ii the story'that King ">g bullied were true, his meanour was inconsistent :, U would be remembered, rt'a chemist's shop and »om the shelves to give Whereas all he had to do « employer how he had 9 the police. Inordinary Wm, after taking a state«»d it over to the Crown was done in this instance, ung concerning his state- * July 27th B to August JJ didi not see King at all, "»e before the Court and *e police had bullied him. ttnk that, assuming 0 be true, the police would Jed him i„,the interim?] J *M that King came to W* bwfi }° . Bi <*erdike, went d a i? nie d his statement. a K5n 8 toW Mr Thomas %« n 7ir* a l lintroe , and made a - iw Gresson. I his statement to Donnelly, it was stton and answer ute properly, of ! to say what ho * he had told Mr but ho did not ti gone back on » a second stnte- «* was taken by nlar way of mak!\«jtfck up for the the kind, but if

this sort of thing is accepted, thca it will never be bare for a police otocer to take a statement. He might have a charge aid against him as suceested by K... K .» The Crown was not con: cerned with getting Boakes convicted at any price, said Air Donnelly It was concerned only with putting he facts hilly and fairly before the mh? lor decision Counsel for the defence was perfectly entitled to see the Crown's witnesses. There was noth ng at all improper m that. There waf never anything improper in anv case Th r™ M a-^ Th ° mas was kerned. The Crown did not own its witnesses. As long as the witnesses were not being got at" the other side was quite entitled to seo them. With regard to King's retraction of his evidencc Mr Thomas merelv saw him in Timaru and King said that his statement was not true. King was sent t0 , ,i y, re f on to make a statement, and all that was perfectly proper. There werte certain 'inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence. Tho boy Mugford gave evidence that when he found the body he saw a man kneeling at the head. As soon as he saw the boy the man disappeared. Mugford was called, not because he helped the Crown, but because it was the duty of the Crown to put forward all the evidence it possessed. When detectives went to the scene of the murder the boy told them that he had seen a man. But the detectives stated in evidence that there was no trace of a man having gone through the scrub.

The great question to consider was whether the «vidence for the Crown that the relations between the girl and Boakes were so closely continuous and exclusive as to dispose of any other man being concerned with her death. If they were satisfied that that was the case, then they must consider that Boakes was the man who killed the girl. But they must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. On tho other hand, if there was a doubt, he must be acquitted. Counsel for the Defence "I must say that it is with' a very grave feeling of responsibility that I rise to address you, gentlemen, on behalf of the accused," said Mr Thomas, opening his address for the, defence. "It would be foolish of mo to blind myself to tho fact that the case.has caused the greatest interest in this City. It has been discussed from the North Cape to the Bluff, and the result is that from one end of New Zealand to the other there has been a wild and merciless cry for blood which is a disgrace to the country to which you and 1 belong. "Never before in my experience, or in that of my friend the Crown Prosecutor, have those persons whoso duty it is to see justice upheld so tried to pre-judge a man. Those persons have failed lamentably in their duty, for a few paltry pence to be wrung from a sen-sation-loving public. The result lias been rumour after rumour until a campaign has been started which threatens to engulf this man. You all knew, before he was arrested, I suppose, that the alleged murderer of the girl was the driver of taxi-cab 22. You all know of the spanner. Why, we were told of a man on tho Marshland road who had identified tho spanner. A single-seater car had stopped for petrol and tho spanner had been left on the running board of the car. The mail remembered that the driver was Boakes, and the girl was she whose photograph appeared in the newspaper," said Mr Thomas. "AH that was rumour and lies. The Crown Prosecutor has invited, you to forget all you have heard about the case hefore coming into Court." "Prejudice and Gossip." Mr Thomas said that the jury hadl to forget all they had heard concerning tho case in tho streets and concentrate their minds on the evidence that had been adduced in Court. They must remember that they wore in a British Court of Justice, whero neither prejudice nor gossip must be allowed to enter and where the only voice to which they were entitled to* listen was that of the law. On them depended the life of a man, and before they decided to find him. guilty they had to be satisfied that he really was. He would take the opportunity of telling them that unless they listened to rumour and were moved by it rather than by the evidence before them they must bring in a veidict of not guilty. The evidence as a matter of fact,was purely and simply circumstantial, and none of it was direct. Much had been written on the strength and also the weaknesses of circumstantial evidence. Some of it could be very strong, but it could never be as strong as tljrect evidence. In direct evidence a witness 'could make a mistake in what he saw, but in circumstantial evidence Ho could also make a mistake in deduction. The present cast was made up wholly of circumstantial evidence. Mr Thomas quoted two cases-, ono of whicn was a ideal case, to show the weakness, of relying to too great an extent on circumstantial evidence, the other being in many respects sirni ar to the Boakes case. Such cases, he mauntamed, must cause the jury to th nK before they could find the prisonei gulty of murder. Counsel went on to state that there was nothing m the evidence before the Court to jnstity them connecting Boakes with Ojen Scarff after three or four dajs betoit the murder' was committed. It *as therefore possible that some other nan killed her and ho held that nis Honour must direct them to return a 535 of not guilty. W.th WjHj I\. ri-«™.n'c rase the Crown I'iosecu--2? hadtod C them that it depended Smost entirely on the re tween Boakes and) tho girl. u e Kep'. Sating this throughout ns address I V +v,« i«rv should remember that in Storf th? repetition it was the one rEionship he was referring to no six or seven different argument This was the only ground upon winch the &$&&&& counsel would remind them << Boakes spent three periods ,n Ug nolice station. He would adm n Shakes was . close, friend o^ & tically ever since she was a guW. ifc could not be said a murderer, was a close friend he jas a m .Was there ever anjthuiS so sive or ridiculous? rhe pouc that Boakes and the girJ >c each other rf^as"undertaken search of the P°""V was doing m to find out what Boake, was respect of the + g-'> * h J™ were taken dence to indicate *"■'.£„ h« r to ascertain the Pf* 10 ", would other male friends. Course suggest that the girt had * f male friend'- \U«at- ao e r , instance? It P" \ Wha t went with him. to JJa" ffen t on did thejury think that th that trip for? \» c „ ,c ro u ld the Crown to the question, nor cou answer it.

On inferences- .„ There was no q« es^°" d X p , but that had proved a close tnend hip, # was not evidence ot n s must be quite dear. H „ sket , pretty well put .to » Because a tho jury to draw infer* the man had a close friew v |d bc> girl, closer, perhaps. tl«" j he , it did not P™« th «> all that the Was there any evident j,, pondiia,, was the cause otl,e a|l tion? There wa, ™™ ho jurv had must be clear. V* tC *° tkG of anything D orighttotokean^not.c nic said outside. It Y° B kes w ith bein K girl's father charged Boa the father of thePJJ U, and as the years ago, .but he t Crown Prosecutor pointy the end of it. the j:ir y to quite wrong Jo r Thomas say: "It's «" „ ngb They must not but I know. *

Co on that line, but entirely disregard all that they had heard outside. The police Bad interviewed 1510 witnesses and combed the town and there was no evidence to show tho sliglrtcst impropriety between the man and the girl. No evidence was called and nono was Riven.

Tho only reason for this was that none existed. When the four went to Dallington together they were Boakes and the girl Capes; Arps and the girl Scarff. If Boakes and Scarff vera "carrying on," would Scarff have allowed him to go away with another pirl ? No, of course not; such a procedure was not human nature. What was true in the days of Congreve was true to-day. "Hell bath no fury like a woman scorned!"

The evidence as to the drugs, said Mr Thomas, depended on one man alone. Mrs McClure described tho packages and bottles which the girl received, and King described those ho sold. But those two witnesses described entirely different packages. The description was given by King before he made his second statement In King's new statement he said that ho did net sell the drugs at all. Obviously King was a liar. If his new statement was true then he lied in the Magistrate's Court and vice versa. He could not be depended upon There was no evidence to show that Boakes procured the drugs and the Crown admitted, quite fairly, that it had no evidence in this respect.

Counsel stated that he was unable to follow the Crown's intentions' concerning the evidence ns to the trip to Cashmere. What did it matter, he asked, if a man did go up and got a girl's luggage? It did not prove that Boakes was a murderer. All it proved was that he had had a talk with tho girl Scarff outsido the gate. Boakes said that he drove a fare to Cashmere. What was more natural than that the girl, who was up getting the milk, should see him, and that they should have a conversation? Boakes then drove his fare away It was absurd to say that because the girl's luggage had gone and that Boakes had l>een seen there he had actually carried the luggage. It was not like the Crown Prosecutor's usual logical view. Bc-akcs did not take away the luggage on February Bth. Why was it that Boakes went to the Federal Hotel and enquired who it was that wanted him? He was directed to a room, out of which the girl came and when Boakes saw her he said, ooou God! Is it you, Gwen?" Counsel submitted that this was not camouflage on Boakes's part. - Why. he asked, should he play such a silly trick? Why, also did not Boakes take her luggage awaj t It was Neato who did so. Counsel then spoke of the spanner found at Burwood and submitted that not a particle of evidence had been presented to show that there was any connexion between it and Boakes. Nothing could be said to prove that it had ever' been in the possession ot Boakes. The fact must be in his favour. Again there was no connexion between Boakes and the coat found at Burwood. A half-hearted attempt had been made by Miss Muriel Ussher, a clerk at the Federal Hotel, to get Boakes connected with the coat, but counsel suggested that she acted so because of a desire to get into the limelight. Ho asked the jury to remember that the Federal Hotel was a busy placo with boarders and taxi-men coming and going all day long along the dimly lighted passage outside the office occupied by Miss Ussher. Yet tour or five weeks after.Boakes had been at the hotel she was able to state that the coat worn by him at the time was smaller than that worn by him at the time of his arrest. Counsel submitted that Boakes, being just an ordinary taxi-man, she would have no reason to remember him more than, anyone else. She said that his coat was tighter in the chest than the other one, yet the witness, Staff-Sergeant MeCann, had said that there was no difference in the two coats except that one had a piece cut off at the bottom. "This is a trial for a man's life, not a guessing competition," said counsel, who'went on to state that after the war such military coats were sold all over the country. Again he would ask his Honour to direct that there was no connexion between Boakes and the coat. Getting the Statements. Concerning Boakes's statements, counsel pointed out that it took on an averago about eight hours to get each one from him, and he asked tho jury to think what eight hours in the police station, where his meals were served and where he was under suspicion ot the crime, would mean to a man. The first statement took from 2 p.m to 9 p m. to obtain; the second from 7 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.; and the third from 5.30 a.m. to 11 a.m. With respect to the evidence of Mrs Watts, in which she mentioned that she saw a White Diamond taxi, No. 22, pull up and Miss Scarff get into it, Mr Thomas submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the driver was Boakes. , ... Boakes had told one lie in connexion with the case, but counsel would submit that it was a very natural and human lie He had denied being at Burwood on'the night of Juno Bth His reason for so doing was that he was being chased and he was pointed out as n murderer. It was therefore possible that on the spur of the moment he told a lie, realising that it was dangerous to be near the scene of the murder at all. Never in all their experience, counsel was sure, had the jury seen a man make such extremely frank statements, commencing with his relationexamination for twenty-four-hours could onlv lie shown to have told one. lie, and that lie was a very human one. -Don't you think, if >'°u were chivvied' for twenty-four hours v o u would make a slip?" asked counsel 1 am entitled to ask you to bring in a.verdict of 'Not guilty." Supposing the Crown has proved all that it set out to prove, still, I say, you must find the accused not guilty. As men of the world you and I know that men m this City to-day aro having illicit intercourse with women and getting pills to give to them. Do you wish to suggest that if a'woman is killed then tho man must he guilty of her death f That is too preposterous and absurd. But I sav, there is no proof of any impropriety. There is no connexion between the accused, the spanner, and the coat, and I am asking his Honour to direct you in all those maters. Therefore, the Crown has nothing lett to relv on but tli9 'friendship.' " \t this stage his Honour, addressing Mr Thomas, said that he did not wish to interrupt unduly, as counsel must have all the time he required, but if it was desired the luncheon adjournment could be taken Mr Thomas- We had bettor go on, perhaps, if the jury so desire. Members of the jury signified their assent, and Mr Thomas continued. Motive. As to motive, there was simply none at all, said counsel. In 99 per cent of the criminal cases tried in Court, motive was present and proved. The bigger the crime, the stronger the motive must be. In a case of murder, the motive must be the strongest possible evidence against the accused. In tho present case motive was absent, and therefore it must be one of the strongest cases for the defence. If motive was existent it was provable. Counsel challenged the Crown to show any reason for the crime. The Crown had described the boy Mugford as the hoy who discovered the body, said Mr I Thomas, but he would he better dei scribed as "the boy who discovered the body and the boy who saw the murderer at tho scene." His story was a clear one, and he was a Crown witness. "Who generally gives the better description of an accident?" asked counsel of the jnrv. "You, your wife, or your boy? The boy always, and

f you know it as woll as I do. He told . the Rev. Mr Tobin all lie had seen within a space of three minutes, galloping off to Mr Tobin on his horse. He saw, he savs, a man kneeling at the head of the'deocased." The Crown knew of this, and if the boy was a liar what right had the Crown to brma him into the bos? But tho boy was truthful. Tho man heard the boys horse- and fled into the broom. His story rings true. Very well. tben; what was the man doing there? Clearly he was the murderer, and that man was not Boakes. If the man was not the murderer, why did he run away from a boy on horseback? If ho was not the murderer, what was he doing there at all? Whv did he kneel down by the body? Until the jury was satisfied as to who it was that Mugford saw. thev could not convict Boakes. This point was not answered by tho Crown. The boy smashed tho Crown's case to pieces. Detective Young had said that he searched the scene but saw no sign of a man. Apparentlv the detective only walked up one side of the road and down the other. But the taxi-driver Neate saw a man, so why did not Young see him? It was quite clear that the man seen bv Neate came out of tho section where the murder was committed. A Murderer's Desire. It was a well known fact that a murderer had a strange desire to visit the scene of his crime. The evidence of the bov Mugford went to show that he saw a'"man beside the body and 'ie was corroborated in this by the watc.ll on tho girl, which, it was stated by Carl Matsen, tho watchmaker witness, had stopped at 12.27, which would bo the time of the murder. Tho watcn had been stopped as the result o. broken glass getting among its works. The point to be considered was the time of stopping—a.m. or p.m.? M*" Matsen calculated that the watch would run for about 14 hours. Ihis would mean that the girl was kmecl about 12.27 p.m., and that she had wound the watch at 10 or 11 a.m., but if the shorter estimate was accepted, it was clear that she wound the watch between 10 and 11 at night, about bedtime. It had to be remembered that Neate saw a man meet the girl outside the Federal Hotel after the last time that Boakes was seen in her company. "What do you say to that?" asked counsel. "This woman was not without* other male friends. And what about the man Neate saw out on the road? Neato saw the man come out of some broom in midwinter without a coat. Why did the man hesitate and then hurry across tho road into the broom ? What is the explanation?" Detective-Sergeant Bickerdiko said that when Boakes was asked if the coat was his he answered no. Boakes always claimed to have one coat. Tf Mugford saw the man shortly after the murder was committed it proved that_ the crime was perpetrated in daylight. Then, again no taxis in Christchurch were so well branded as the White Diamond cabs, yet no such taxi was seen there, nor was Boakes. Neither was there any trace of blood on his clothes, nor had any part of his wardrobe been destroyed. Three or four days had elapsed between the time Boakes was last seen with the girl. This period was an absolute blank, and unless t could l>e bridged over there could be no association between Boakes and the girl. Counsel would suggest that the police arrested Boakes in sheer desperaapplied, did the jury think the arrest would have taken place? On a capital charge like this there had never been more flirasyevidence. less evidence, and more unsatisfactory evidence. The traditions of tho police stood high in New Zealand, but in the present case it would appear that their desires had run away with their discretion. What answer was there to Mugford, to Ussher, to Neate, and to King? It remained for tho jury to say whether they were perfectly satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that Boakes committed the murder. _ He wanted to know why Mugford in his evidence in chief did not state that he saw "a man' kneeling at the head of the body, it being left to counsel to extract this information under cross-examination. Why was such information concealed ;' The Crown Prosecutor: You can't say that; it is not fair. . Mr: Thomas said that the boy had been seen by Detective-Sergeant Young in the course of his enquiries, and the information should have been brought out without the necessity for cross-examination. Identification Procedure. The usual means of identification adopted by the police were fair, but the means used with Miss Ussher were not fair. She tried to identify the man who took the luggage. She went round! the taxi-stand with two detectives, and they finally sent her up to Boakes to speak to him. She Was unable to say that the man was Boakes. "Thank God we have an honest witness who is prepared to swear that she was unable to say that the man was Boakes," said counsel. "But now comes the - interesting fact. The two detectives were Walsh and Bickerdike. What sort of identification was that? Supposing the position rested on Miss Ussher! It was not the fair and aboycboard means of identification usually carried out. . Obviously it was improper. "As to King," said counsel, one has started to wonder whether the indictment is against King or Boakes. Once King had said that he had lied he was sent to Mr Gresson to make a statement. I expect that the whole twelve of you said, when King was in the box, 'Liar!' But the statement 1 read to you rang true. He is a nervous typo of chap and you can see it. He made a lying statement and then bolstered it up. Eventually he Had the moral courage to tell someone, about it. He was not a friend or Boakes, but placed himself in the position of being liable to from seven to ten years for perjury. Now, however, it is quite possible that he is telling tho truth. Either Walsh or Bickerdike put the evidence unfairly. Are vou satisfied with them? Did they 'give their evidence as unbiased .police officers? No!" , . , , .. The case was one which must live long in the memories of the members of the jury, said counsel "But what are your memories going to bo it jou have hanged the accused and then found out that he was not the guilty partv? To find him guilty you must find'him an absolute fiend. What evidence is there at all or a trait of crueltv? None, absolutely none. rie is a kindlv man, and not ono to lose his temper. He is decent to women and children and always obliging lne characteristics of a man likelyto commit murder are all absent. The murder occurred at night, and Boakes * as on the taxi-stand at 5.30 a m. with no strange look in his eye. and he just carried on with his ordinary avocation Do von think a man coming from a tigerish murder would go on with his ordinary work, talk to his mates in the usual way, and show no .icrn? And vet the Crown would have you believe that Boakes murdered the woman, in a fiendish way. Counsel's Thanks. "I wish to thank the Crown Prosecutor, whose conduct of. a case is alwa\b very fair, and also my friend, Mr Burns, for his help in this difficult trial," said Mr Thomas. I "If vou have the moral courage and regard the sanctity of your oaths, then the position will be all right," saw counsel, concluding his address. ' demand that vou remember the greatest of all principles of •British j« s > tl ?? —the benefit of the doubt. It should be soundlv guarded and preserved by everv juror. In Scotland there is a verdict of 'Not proven,' but in New Zealand the verdict is 'Not guilty. The Scottish verdict should be intro-

duced into other parts of the British Empire. '"lt is better that ten guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be wrongfully convicted." said counsel. "Tako the case of Saccho and Vanzetti It was said that better two men should lose their lives than that tho laws of the countrv should Ik; brought into derision. Thank God that is nob so in this country! 'There are two courses open—ono to send this man back to his wife and family, and the other to send him to the dungeon and the gallows. We arc in a Court of Justice, and the handmaid of justico is mercv. But I ask not for mercy. What I demand from you i S> justice. If there is justice there # is only one verdict open, and that is an acquittal:" . His Honour Sums Tip. "You have listened with a great deal of patience, care, and attention to the whole of the evidence," said his Honour, m summing up at 3 p.m. The Judge referred to the extreme gravitv of the charge, and said that everything had been examined with considerable care, there was little dispute as'to the] facts but he would have to delnv the jury for some little time. His Honour referred to the mischievous publication of comment and the circulation of rumours, which, however honest one might be, or how determined to deal out even-handed justice, caused an unconscious bins to the prejudice of the accused. Tho burden of proof, as in all criminal cases, rested on the Crown. Every person was innocent until his guilt was proved. The Crown must prove its own case. If there was any weakness so that the jury could not ccme to a conclusion, which meant being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, then the accused was entitled to an acquittal. There was a high and stringent rule in the eye of the law that not only must every person be presumed innocent until proved .guilty, but no person must be in peril of' conviction unless the jury was convinced that he was guilty in fact. That should be the truo rule for British, as it was for ! Divine, justice. The evidence was all circumstantial. It had always been the practice in this country and the British Empire to remind the jury that there might be circumstances unknown to the jury or the Crown which, if known, would put a different complexion on the evidence for the Crown. Tho striking case quoted by Mr Thomas was perhaps the best illustration on our books, although cases were continually arising where some fact had arisen which showed tho .jury it had been mistaken in arriving at a certain conclusion. The late Mr Justice Wells had written a valuable work on circumstantial evidence. His Honour quoted from the opinions expressed in this. Ho had held that where there was nothing but i circumstances to guide, they must be connected so as to be an infallible proof. "Every circumstance not clearly shown to be connected with the hypothesis it I was supposed to support must be rejected from the judicial balance." Value of Circumstantial Evidence. The Judge referred to a case which had come before the Court of Appeal in this district in 1902, in which the evidence was circumstantial, and in which certain inferences were drawn by his Honour in his judgment. The Court of Appeal said that there must be evidence which went far enough to show that guilt must be inferred. That was the statement of the ex-Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout. Mr Justice Williams had said that the evidence must be incompatible with innocence, and another Judge had said that the evidence must 1 such as to be consistent only with adultery having been committed. Then thero was the Hodges case of ninetv years ago—it was ono of eircumrtantial evidence altogether, which contained not one fact that, taken alone, amounted to a presumption of guilt. "That is so in this case," said his Honour. He reviewed the circumstances of the case, which had been ono of murdc- of a woman, who had been returning from market. The accused was acquainted with her. It was a case of circumstance- entirely. In this case the jury, in order to find tho prisoner guilty, must bj satisfied that the facts were such as would be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the person charged was the guilty person. "I am sure your good sense will be in accord with these old and new authorities," said his Honour. "That ru'e must be applied in testing the evidence in this case. You must not act on suspicion or conjecture. You must dismiss everything from your mind external to the evidence in this case, and this is what I am sure you will address yourself to." The case had been put in perfect fairness by the Crown Prosecutor, and all the facts had been brought forward; His Honour said he did not want to say anything about the association of the accused with the deceased before June Bth, beyond that there was a certain amount of intimacy admitted by counsel for accused. Mr Thomas had gone so far as to say it might bo inferred from their close friendship that there might have been improprieties. There was no evidence at all of that, however. Counsel was only putting it forward as a concession to make his point stronger. Whilo acts o' platonic friendship might be all right, others were capable of interpretation in a sinister meaning. Up to June 8(h there was nothing which would justify an implication of guilt on the charge. From June Bth to 15th. His Honour then reviewed the happenings from June Bth up to the day of the murder. The milkman, Rickerby, said he was delivering milk at about 6.1* a.m. on June Bth at Cashmere, and saw tho meeting between the accused an> the girl Scarff. It was dark, and the taxi had its lights on. He saw the girl come out and walk over towards the taxi. The presumption was that there was some conversation. The Crown contended that the evidence was sufficient to show that Boakes drove the car, and the interview took place. Thore was no evidence of what was done. That morning Mrs McClure showed that the girl was up a little earlier than usual. On the same day, at 1.30 p.m., Miss Scarff left Wood's, an", did not return, and that afternoon, which was her usual half-day off, she went home and saw her mother. At 10.30 that evening the motorman and conductor of a tram from Burwood saw BoakeJ, who was waiting in the shelter there, board it and ride into the Square. At 11.30 the same night the night porter at the Federal Hotel admitted a girl nan Miss Armstrong, a man who accompanied her asking hat she be admitted. He then went away, saying he would be back at 10 a.m. the next day. The porter said he was like the accused. On June 9th a waitress, Linda Coleman, gave the girl her breakfast, midday meal, and dinner in her room, and the same thing the following day. On the Sunday she took breakfast in to the girl. " She was out to lunch, and back to dinner, as was covered by the evidence of Mrs Parr. On June 9th, at 2.30 p.m., Mrs Watts saw the girl on the riverbank. She entered a White Diamond taxi, which drove up, and went away. The identification made or attempted by Mrs Watts seemed to rely on what she had seen on the two follow- j up days. She said she had seen the accused on the two following days, and identified him, but that was not an abso-, lute identification. Witness was perfectly honest, but might be mistaken as tc who came up at 2.30 p.m. on the 9th. Perhaps this was not.a matter of first-class importance. On the 9th the girl's luggage was left at the hotel, but

Miss Ussher said she was not suro the taxi-driver was Boakes.

In Favour of Accused. A point raado in favour of accused was that the night porter did not identify the person who enmo late on the Sth, and the luggage did not come with the woman. Had it been Boakes, and had he been planning with the girl, he would have brought the girl and tho luggage at the one lime. The question had to be considered whether, if it had been accused, he would have taken tho 'uggage at night instead of it being brought the next morning.

His Honour then dealt with the visit of the man to the hotel on the 10th in an overcoat. Miss Ussher, he said, had stated that he wore a military overcoiit, tight-fitting, and short, and reach, ing to tho knees. She said she saw him afterwards by the taxi wearing a different coat, which was much longer and fuller, and reached down a good way below the knees. The jury had to compare the statements with tho evidence of the Sergeant-Major who had spread the coats out on the tablo in the Court. It had been shown that one coat had a portion cut off the bottom, making it about four inches shorter than the other, but otherwise they were identical in all respects. On June 10th Miss Scarff's mother had called at the hotel, according to the porter Connelly. Miss Ussher telephoned for Boakes, and he arrived. Ho was shown to the girl's room and said, "Oh, it's you!" upon seeing her. It was suggested that this was an ejaculation of surprise, indicating that at the time accused did not expect to sec the. girl Scarff in the hotel. On June 11th, according to Prisk, the motor-driver, tho girl had called at the Colosseum garage at about 4.30 p.m., and Boakes went out to see her. Thero was no information as to her movements from the Sunday, but on tho 14th Neato took her luggage and left it at the tram shelter left luggage office. Ho had stated that at 2 p.m. ho had seen her talking to a man. She was standing under a verandah in Colombo street. This evidence had been quoted by counsel as illustrating one of the dangers of circumstntial events, unless all the circumstances enabled one to reach a perfectly safe conclusion. King's Conflicting Statements. "You saw King and heard his evidence," said his Honour, "and you might conclude that you would not hang a cat on any evidence he might give." They must avoid the danger of assuming that if he was not telling the truth there, by a swing back of the mind, | that he was telling the truth on tho j other occasion, and rely on that. "You must not'do that," directed his Honour. "Your eyes and minds must be closed to any evidence given outside this Court and witness-box. You must make your minds a blank as to what he said in the Magistrate's Court. You can act only on the sworn testimony given in this Court." His statements made to the police and in a Court of justice for a crime not less than murder, a capital charge, must not be considered. He had sworn falsely and in considerable detail on a matter that he knew might be vital to the case. They must dismiss that from their minds. Where that evidence might have been written they had nothing but a clean page. If he had made a recantation it was because of the fear of charge of perjury before his eyes. It was a late repentance, and it was very regrettable that he should have committed perjury in a Court of law. "Coming to the facts from which you can alone find Boakes guilty of the crime," said his Honour, "the accused is connected with the site of the murder only by the evidence of the tram conductor and motorman that he was waiting in the Burwood shelter for the 10.30 p.m. tram to the Square on the 10th, they saw him enter it and ride to the Square." The evidence was that the murder took place about 400 yards from the shelter shed, and there was nothing to show where Boakes had been before he entered the car or why he was in the shelter. There was nothing to show what had taken him to the shelter or that he had been closer than that to the place where murder took place. No Connexion With Main Tacts. "You will find it impossible to show his direct connexion with the main facts of the case," said his Honour. There were different occasions before June 11th on which, there was no question, meetings had taken place between accused and the girl, but there was no suggestion of a quarrel or a disagreement. It had been put to them that Boakes had been acquainted with her and more or less intimate with her—that there had been a longstanding intimacy. All that had taken place between them from the Bth until the 11th might be interpreted innocently as the action of a nian who had known the girl since she was a child, and wanted to assist her when she was in trouble, as he had said in his statement. "There was nothing to justify the attaching of any sinister meaning to these interviews," said his Honour. They might find their minds in a state of suspicion, but no man was ever properly convicted on suspicion or conjecture or anything which did not establish guilt beyond a- reasonable doubt. Tho last occasion, accused was connected with the girl was at 4.30 p.m. on June 11th, and the inference, tho Crown suggested, they were entitled to draw was that Boakes murdered the deceased. . The body of the girl had been found by the boy Mugford at tho spot about 400 yards from the tram shelter, about 1.30 p.m. on June 15th, and the medical evidenco was that # tho girl had been dead about six or eight hours, but that she might have lived as long as 14 hours or so. Tho evidence would aeen' to point to her living for some time after the dreadful injuries were received. One part of Mugford's story might lead to the conclusion that she had been murdered shortly before tho body was discovered. Tho Man Found by the Body. The Judge read from the witness's evidence. If he had been telling tho truth, he said, there was only a short distanco between him and the man at the head of tho body. Ho would not easily be under a hallucination as to what he saw and did not see. His evidenco stood uncontradicted. It was for them to say what its value was. The witness gave his evidence in the usual way. It was put to the jury that this evidence must be cumulative upon that of Neate as to seeing the girl only ten or eleven hours before the murder. They must consider the danger of relying' on circumstantial evidence and the way in which it should bo regarded. Jf the lad's evidence was correct, they had a startling fact which must have an unsettling effect on their minds, if they were arriving at a conclusion as to his guilt. It was not likely that a man would ]>e in the attitude described by Mugford and himself have no connexion with the crime. It would be very dangero u s to assume that he was there for "an innocent purpose and dismiss him from their minds so completely as to bring in a verdict of guilt against another person without the strongest reason. The evidenco was that he was a smaller man than Boakes That evidence showed the need for extreme caution in arriving at a decision. The boy's story raised quite a lot of doubt as to tho time the crime was committed. It might have been either just after midnight or after midday. It was suggested that the girl's watch had stopped at 12.27 p.m., not 12.27 a.m. The point was how to arrive at a solution of the problem without any evidence connecting Boakes with the girl between 4.30 p.m. on the 11th and tho time of the crime.

Trip to Dallington. It had been suggested that there miaht have been some other person, and they had to bear in mind the unhappy girl's story. Her trip before Christmas, 1926, with the girl Capes when they went with Boakes and Arps in the latter's car to a dark and lonely place, where the girl bcartt gtayed with Arps and Boakes with Miss Capes, had to be borne in mind. Ihis was quiU a disturbing piece of evidence, now that the evidence of King was before them. There was nothing to suggest that Boakes was responsible for the girl Scarff's condition. That evidence depended on King. Counsel had introduced the name of Arps as illustrating in as strong a manner as could be done the danger always hovering over a case of this kind when the evidence was so entirely circumstantial. The Spanner. Then they had the question of the spanner, the coat, the places where they were found, and tne blood on them, and whether their discovery

would indicate whether or not the spanner had been used or the coat worn by the man who committed the crime. If there had been clear evidence that either of these was the undoubted property of accused, he would have had a different case to answer. With commendable anxiety and industry the police had made an exhaustive search to discover the owner of the spanner,, but without result. There were no finger-prints upon it. There was evidence that it was a metric Continental spanner, and had been filed to fit the nuts on an English car. The only evidence to connect it with Boakes was that six or seven years ago he had owned a Continental car with a foreign tool-kit, but it had been mortgpqed to a man named Balkind. a money-iender, who seised the car. He had had a spanner with that car which had no* part in connexion with the spanner found which identified it as ever being in the possession of Boakes. At 4.16 p.m. tne jury retired, returning at 5 p.m'. with a verdict rf "Not Guilty." When the door of the dock was opened, Boakes rapidly strode from the Courtroom.