ENIGMA OF ELSIE WALKER CASE

NZ Truth, Issue 1240, 5 September 1929, Page 7

ENIGMA OF ELSIE WALKER CASE

Legal Authorities Give Unqualified Gontradict ion To Mr. Wilford's Statement In Parliament

AMPLE GROUNDS FOR ANOTHER INQUEST

ON one ground alone-— the coroner's dissatisfaction with the situation; m the light of fresh evidence^— the' Minister' should • have instructed th c police authorities to make application for a new inquisition. Yetjfte 'aawfit to express himself m a Astripg- ,pf • evasive generalities. A .' v ; yy , : ; He said that while the ' ; Supreme Court had legal capacity to set. Aside" the finding . of a coroner, ' the jurisdiction was limited to cases where It could be slmvn' that something illegal had formed part of the inquest proceedings. ;.-. ,y A Another strange pronouncement of the Minister's; was : that although^ the High Court of England was invested; with power to reopen 'an inquest at any time, if it. were considered m. the .interest, of justice to do. so, no such •power existed; m New Zealand law. Suohan opinion is entirely erroneous, since trie very foundation . of New, Zealand's legal code is the Common Law of England, which gives the High Courts there the power which Mr. Wijford says is absent from our laws. Because Common Law is,grounded m the virtues of good sense, and there is -no legal authority to exemplify any difference m the Common. Law of England and New .Zeala.nd,; the Minister's premisesA underlying his astounding announcement are' unquestionably at .fault.' ■•'■ '\f '■ • > He has said, A m? effect, that beyond the gate of. illegality m a coroner's . investigation the field,, of the Supreme ; Court is - closed, when; as a matter of [fact, the .Supreme Court, side by side with the English High Court/has the right m Common Law to order a further inquiry into -cases similar to the Elsie Walker mystery, where fresh evidence has been' discovered. !* Contrary to Mr. Wilf ord's implication, the. coroner is not merely a creation of Statute, and it is apposite to cast a short mould of history m respect of this official.. Although not as old as the sheriff, Who dates' back to Anglo-Saxon times, the coroner commenced to function shortly after, the Norman conquest, so that he is 'controlled and guided by Common Law, which is centuries old. So far as. he is concerned, this law was modified by a large number of statutes, -.' firstly "'by; the Statute of Westminster, , which was passed m 1275; but this -and the 32 other statutes were wholly repealed by the English Coroners' Act of 1887, which consolidated and declared the. old law, but did not amend it. This Act of 1887 contains the clause to which- the Minister of Justice referred last week, relating to the ; powers of the High Court, y From • very early times one finds . traces of English courts exercising jurisdiction over the .findings of corp.'ners. Bracton) m his thirteenth cenjtury work on. / Common Law, "refers to •the power vested m the Court of [King's Benchyrto quash, inquisitions -! land; to order fresh inquests. This . procedure has continued, end it has been held that this Law .-'! is not.; affected by the Statute, which simply- means . that the Courty-may:- exercise its Common taw jurisdiction by intervening

. The Minister of Justice committed a grave faux pas m the | House of Representatives last week, when he omitted to inform members that the Common Law of this country invests him with ; authority to . order application to. be made to the Supreme /Court to order a fresh inquiry into; Elsie Walker's mysterious ' deatli. Why did he further subscribe, to the stubborn attitude of a the' poiic^^thorities, when there is ample legal ground on which lie^coui^^ revival of official investigations?

A wherever necessary, and m the in- :' terests of justice. Mr. Wilford said quite definitely that this, power of intervention so far as it concerns .New Zealand is restricted to cases- .where illegality has crept into coronial inquiries, but there are a number of English, cases which disprove his ■ assertiphi .'y .''■-' . ' In a leading text-book, .lei-vis on Coroners, 1927 .edition, on. page; 71, appear instances wher.e the High Court, acting not under Statute' but according'to its powers under ' Common Law, quashed : inquisitions. ..The following examples ar e given : — . . , . In 1916 the. body of a man. was found washed up On the shore, "and after the customary, hearing /at- the- Coroner's' Court, the jury returned; a verdict of "Pound drowned." ; A .-..-., ... As the result; of ; a. suggestion; that j

fresh evidence purported to show the man might have been thrown overboard, the Court revoked the original proceedings and m the subsequent inquiry it was proved that the deceased received severe m juries, on board ship. At an inquest held, the day after a man took his life, a verdict of suicide was returned, but his relatives were unable to be present and give evidence of deceased's state of mind prior to the event,, and so another inquest was held. ;■•' There was a case of a woman who was found burned., to .death m a pigsty. The coroner's jury, heard evidence of identity from a policeman only, and returned an open verdict, which was held to be inadequate m the circumstances.- A -.-'.' ■-.•-" -■■ y y .;.-"' ■; ■';, ". In these examples the" Minister's excusihg. word; "illegality" is absent, yet the High Court- deemed there : were sufficient grounds oh "which to base orders for 'fresh inquests. s '■'■'.. New Zealand law is ; framed on English Common Law— where then ; is Mr, Wilford's authority for implying that the two. are hot parallel? One of the . most cogent eases that j can be ' cited is the Regina v. Carter

case of 1876, decided before the English Coroners' Act came into operation, and- therefore within -the Common Law power of the Court. , The jury m this case decided that deceased died of poisoning, but there was not sufficient evidence .to show how -the ppisbrt was taken. It wa3 afterAvards submitted that . several persons' who we're desirous pf giving evidence had not been /called, so the Court ordered ['&■. fresh inquiry. . A. Chief . Justice ..Cockburn ..said: "All we say'isthat If some'of the evidence had been received, more light- might' have been' thrown on the'yinquiry. :.' Therefore, we quash the; inquisition." ;If'the New Zealand authorities were really, anxious to have .the Elsie Walker inquiry reopened, the English

case of Rex v. Wood, decided as recently as 1908, should provide thorn with ample material and stimulus. This case also was decided under the court's Common Law powers, and the High Court quashed the inquisition on the application of the police and with the Coroner's acquiescence. The jury had suggested to the coroner that they were dissatisfied with the verdict they returned, and through the police ' their, expression of dissatisfaction was \ passed on to the court,, which promptly ordered a hew inquiry. - ? In .New Zealand the coroner is both, coroner and. jury, so that if Mr. \ Hunt, was , correctly reported as saying that he considered . a fresh inquiry ought to be held, on this ground alone the police should make- application Ato the Supreme "Court;-;- 'yOncf would have thought that a con - sideratibh of .the above authorities, if not sufficient toy convince the Minister of Justice, would at least have created a {doubt m his. mind, and if that element of uncertainty Were present, it was his bounden duty m view of the charges, of ineptitude nmde against the police, not to resolve that doubt hini-

self, but to apply to the Supreme Court, the sole authority. '^ • Why is the Minister so surd of his premises? If; he attaches such importance to the English Statutes,* he should know that of the 33 Statutes repealed by the English Coroner's Act of 1887, such of these. as; were m force m 1840, and applicable to this colony, are still m force! Any. doubt on the question as to whether fresh material evidence may be ground for a new inquiry is dissolved conclusively by authority. The general principles of the law m its other branches also provide authority for a new inquiry. For instance, a new trial of a civil action can be ordered. The- effect of such an order may be disastrous to individuals, -since a successful litigant may be , deprived of a t verdict for thousands of pounds. If that can befachieved m civil actions/ why should there be any hesitation m demanding reconsideration of a coroner's verdict, where the interest of individuals is -not directly involved, but wherein a .vital principle is concerned? . . Not only have the police failed to apprehend the slayer, of Elsie Walker, but their inefficiency is being buttressed by the somewhat

hasty opinions of the Minister of Justice, who, having dipped them extravagantly m the pool of soothing whitewash, apparently hastened to prove that there is no need to wash it off m the more drastic water of a fresh inquest. It would be strange indeed if the law were as Mr. ' Wilford says it is, and very regrettable if a slur remained on more than one innocent person, when there is clear and abundant authority for remedial legal processes to be instituted. A young girl has gone, to a sad and untimely end; new evidence is 1 available; police efficiency is very much m doubt, and the Minister of Justice has expressed an opinion that does not conform to the actual legal position.. ; Will Mr. Wilford reconsider , the matter, and order a new inquest into Elsie Walker's death? The public will not be content to let the mystery remain unsolved, while fresh light '.can be thrown on it. Another article, presenting important . 'aspects of the Elsie Walker mystery m view of ' recent developments, will be published m neicUweek's "Truth,"

drag, a meat skewer from his coat and piercs the pneumatic tyre of Wild's motor-bike when Mrs. Jones had locked the door after Wild had entered. ', Richards told of these happenings m a tared voice. He smiled at the recollection of the frantic Wild trying to borrow a type pump tne night that Jones punctured his alleged rival's tyre. ■■■'■■'•'' ■ : ■ ■ ' What amused Richards most was the fact that Wild,- he said, came along, to Richards and asked for a loan of a tyre pump. Richards was sitting m-a car watching Mrs. Jones' ; flat at the moment. • Mr. Edwards discovered m crossexamination that . at one time Mrs. Richards had been caretaker of the flat, m; which Mrs. Jones lived, and which are known as' Dariinghurst Freeholds. His wife had now' been relieved of the caretakirig, and another ■ woman appointed. He /admitted .that his wife had been fined for 'assaulting the new caretaker, and had 'beeri boUrid oyer to keep, the peace. A A A Richards said that he especially watched Mrs. Jones on January 23, 24, 28, and February 8. •■■ lie. saw Wild mending his punctured tyre under , the light of an electric standard.

Mrs. Jones: In January, 1928. How? — i used to buy lace at Snows, and his sister, Marjorie L/ily Wild, used to serve me. I gave her my name and address, and later I met her m the surf at Bronte. One. Saturday afternoon, she Introduced me to her brother who used to surf with. her. Then I visited their home and they visited my fiat m Barcom Avenue. Did Wild; ever come to see you. at your flat?-— Yes, with his sister. She used to bring him along. When you moved from Surrey Street to Barcom Aveime, : did you have your mother with you ?— Yes, : she . - stayed until she' returned to New -Zealand m August last. yA : -A- A 'AA y-y; Did Wild cometo the jflat while your, mother; , was there ?— Yes. He was useful: and made some shelves for me. Mrs. Jones went 'on to explain that before, she -took,;; a ' holiday Atrip to' Tuggerah Lakes from January MO. to January -24.A1929, with her son," .Owen,' who had his school ; holidays' at' that time, .she had left her ice-chest m /the care; of sbhie people - named Forster, who lived m the flat underneath. ' y : \ Then she went to Tuggerah, a.nd while 'she was "there Mr. Charlie Wild came to: stay at theY same 'boardinghouse. He occupied a different room,

liarity between you and Wild that night m- the flat? Mrs: Jones: No. Did you ever kiss him m your life?— N0... ■ ■-,'■ •'••'. ■ Mrs. 1 Jones went on to say that Wild went away that week-end again to Tuggerah and she next saw; him at the flat 'on January 28— another of the dates on'- which the husband alleged impropriety between the couple. Mrs. Jones set up an alibi on that night. She and Wild and a Miss Griffith, a friend, and a : Mr. ; Werner, who had a car, took, them for a spin around; the city and suburbs. A; „ , .:, • ' They went out to Ehmore . to see a.'. sick sister of Miss, < Griffith; then they saw a .woman';. : mpa'hJng'\-and- : :^b£miiig^ : on a footpath and stopped around looking at her for sonic time; and. ttieh they visited a fruit shop and bought a water-melon. a,hd two rock-melorisy' ' They sought for; a; place to eat. A V t.he'jf ruit, ahd-at last^after much y driving- round, they found a vacant ', ; allotmehtA m . ; Wdmerah ; Avenue. She sat oh the running board of the car, while, the ; other three sat on thevg.roijndyand ; ate the melons. ; After that ;they Areturhe.d Ato the neighborhood Apf her - flat. As they