SOLDIER DISAPPEARS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10286, 22 May 1919, Page 3

SOLDIER DISAPPEARS

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. Yesterday, at the Buckle street Barracks, the circumstances attending the disappearance of Rifleman John Russell from the ferry steamer Marare.a last October, wore further investigated. ' Roses Amelia Mclntyre, at whose residence Russell had stayed, deposed that after he had been there for over a week, after his, return from the front, he behaved in a peculiar manner. On one occasion he made a remark to the effect that the best thing he could do would be to throw himself out of the window and end his life. When her husband returned, she expressed _ the opinion that Russell was not right in his mind, as he had heen saying strange things 10 her. When witness asked him to attend his meals he would not do so. The last time she saw Russell was when he came back from the Mararoa on the last occasion, and he then told witness that ho could not stop on the !>oat because women were talking about him.

To the president: The (impression she had of Russell was that ho, wanted watching, as he might do himself an injury, but she did not look upon him as insane or dangerous. On his return from the front he appeared to be much the same as prior to going away, and, if anything, was more settled regarding ideas as to his future, it being his intention to go to Sydney to see his mother. Witness had never known Russell to bo drunk, or bring drink into her Rouse. Witness re-' membered the occasion on which Goodwin called at idle house, and said that he was to escort Russell to Hamner. Russell never expressed to witness any disinclination to go to Hanmer, but said ho would sooner have gone to Sydney to see hia mother first, and said that he had tried to .arrange this. Russell had asked witness to put him up when he returned from Sydney, to go back to his former occupation in Wellington. He never suggested remaining in Australia or settling in any other part of New Zealand. Re-examined, Rifleman • Robert McIntyre stated that since Russell returned from the front h© had not seen him intoxicated. If it had been stated in evidence that Russell had told several other witnesses that he had been “drinking heavily, and that he thought his state was due to the effects, he (witness) could not account for such a statement. Witness was with Russell frequently, and must have known if he was drinking heavily. The court then adjourned until 10.30 to-day, when it is expected that the concluding evidence will be taken.