THE BURWOOD MURDER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3718, 17 November 1927, Page 3

THE BURWOOD MURDER.

TRUE BILL RETURNED. Christchurch, November 15. * In his address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal sesr sions of the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Adams, referring to the charges against Chas. Wm. Boakes, pointed out that when a person was indicated for murder no other charge should be included in the same indictment, and accordingly separate indictments would be presented, one of murder and one of supplying a noxious drug for a certain purpose.

The evidence upon the charge of supplying a noxious drug might be .taken and considered in connection with the indictment for murder. After reviewing the evidence, His Honour said that he had the gravest doubts whether a true bill ought to be found on the charge of murder. In reviewing the evidence with regard to the charge of having supplied a noxious drug, His Honour said that it depended mainly on' the evidence Of two witnesses, one of them a chemist’s assistant named King, and the. other Mrs. M ( Clure, who was engaged in the same house as Miss Scarff. The only direct evidence was that of the chemist’s assistant. A man should not be 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.

‘Wjith regard to the conversation which took place between her and Amelia Watts on the river bank on June 3, the Judge, pointed out that no one could be prejudiced by a convei’sation which took place in his absence. The law, therefore, was that such conversations were not admitted in legal proceedings. On June 9, Boakes, in answer to a. telephone message from the Hotel Federal from Miss Scarff, went to the hotel and saw hex*. When he went to the hotel, Muriel Usher, a clerk, said that he was wearing a military overcoat. Then she said that she saw him again some time in July and he was then wearing a different military overcoat. “It is important that you should remember that,” said His Honour, “because a good deal has been said and a good deal I think you will find depends upon identification of that overcoat, and whether or not it can by any reasonable inference be connected with the overcoat that was afterwards foxxnd.” On June 11, added His Honour, a man named Pi’isk -saw Miss Scaxff at the Colosseum 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 vei’y carefully in mind. That is the last Occasion so far as the evidence is concerned upon which Boakes was- ever seen in company with Ellen Scarff or known 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.” His Honour added: “There is xxothing in. the evidence so far as I can see as it stands to show that Boakes was anywhere in the neighbourhood of the scene of the murder on the night of June Bth. “There appears to be nothing in the evidence to show that Boakes ever saw the woman after June 1. Neither the spanner nor the military overcoat would appear so far as the evidence is concerned ever to have been traced to his possession.”

The jury retii’cd at 11.15 a.m. and returned at 3.50 p.xn. with , a true bill against Boakes on both ’charges.