BURWOOD MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 15 November 1927, Page 3

BURWOOD MURDER

BOAKES ON TRIAL. By Telegraph—Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 15. In an address’' to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal sessions Judge Adams referring to the uhajrgos against C/haitles William Boakes pointed out that when a person was indicted for murder no other charge should be included in Ibe saino indictment and accordingly separate indictments would be presented, ono of murder and one of supplying noxious drug for one purpose. Evidence upon tho charge of supplying noxious drugs might be taken and considered in connection with the indictment for murder. After reviewing the evidence His Honour said he had the gravest doubts whether a true bill ought to bo found on a charge of murder. Judge Adams said -“There is nothing in the evidence so far as I can see, ns it stands, to show that Boakes was anywhere in the neighbourhood of the scene of the murder on the night of Juno 8. There appears to bo nothing in the evidence to show that Boakes ever saw the woman after June 11. Neither the spanner nor military overcoat could appear, so far as tho evidence is concerned ever to have Ikmmi traced to his possession.”

The Judge reviewed tho evidence with regard to the charge of having supplied a noxious drug. It depended. he said, mainly on the evidence of tho two witnesses, one of them was a chemist’s assistant named King, and tho other was Mrs MoLure, who was engaged in the same house as Miss Sear If. The only direct evidence was that of the chemist’s assistant. A man should not bo prejudiced by statements, whether written or oral, which were made in his absence and which were not traced to him. His Honour next dealt in detail with the evidence relating to the charge of murder. He referred at some length to the movements of Miss Scarff. prior to leaving the hotel, and with regard to the conversation which took place between her and Amelia. Watts on the river bank on June 9th. The Judge pointed out that no one could be prejudiced by tho conversation, which took place in his absence. The law, therefore, was that such conversations were not admitted in legal proceedings. On June 9th Boakes in answer to a telephone message .Horn the Hotel Federal from Miss Scarff went to the hotel anil saw her. AVlien be went to the hotel. .Muriel Usher, a clerk, said lie was wearing a military overcoat. Then she said she saw him again some time in July and he was then wearing a different military overcoat. It is important you should remember that, said bis Honour. •• because a good deal lias been said, and a good deal. I think you will find, depends upon the identification of that overcoat, and whether or not it. can be by any reasonable inference be connected with the overcoat that was afterwards found.” “ Oil June lltli,” added bis Honour.

a man named Prisk saw Miss Scarff at the Collosium Garage. He said that Boakes spoke to her then and that was the last occasion on which there was any evidence to show that Boakes ever saw her.” “ That, of course,” said the Judge, “ you ought to bear very carefully in mind. That is the last occasion so far as the evidence is concerned upon which Boakes was ever seen in company with Gwen Scarff or as having had any connection at all with her.’ “It is not shown by the evidence that Boakes was ever seen in her company after that moment.