DID MOUAT KILL WIFE?

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 855, 26 December 1929, Page 1

DID MOUAT KILL WIFE?

“Dead” Woman May Be Alive MYSTERY OF HER DISAPPEARANCE Release From Gaol Sought CLAIMING that his wife was seen by several people after she was alleged to have been killed by him,. Frederick Peter Mouat, who is serving a sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment at Mount Eden Gaol for the manslaughter of his wife, Nellie Mouat, has petitioned the Governor-General for his release. Reviewing the evidence, Mouat claims that, with the furnaces that were available, it would have been impossible for him to have cut up his wife’s body and burned it as alleged.

Unusual and highly sensational features surrounded the trial and retrial of Mouat in 1925. At the first trial held in May, the jury was unable to agree, and at the second trial in August verdicts of guilty of manslaughter and not guilty of wifemurder were brought in. Briefly, the case for the Crown was that Mouat and his wife, who were married at Portsmouth, England, on March 2, 1910, were living together at 10 Beckford Hoad, St. Martin’s, Christchurch, for some three months prior to the month of February, 1925, and that on the night of February 19, 1925, or the following morning, Mrs. Mouat disappeared. The allegation of the Crown was that during that night, or on the following morning, the couple quarrelled, that Mouat, either by accident or design, slew his wife, dismembered her body and completely destroyed it by burning, except for minute fragments of bone produced at the trial. During the trial Mouat protested his complete innocence of any such deed, and has continued to do so. His relatives still believe in his innocence and one of them, his sister-in-law, Mrs. Mary Mouat, of Devonport, Auckland, has worked Incessantly to establish the facts in support of the contention that Nellie Mouat was not murdered by her husband, and that after her supposed death she was seen alive by various persons. It is as a result of her efforts in this direction that the petition has been prepared and presented. In his petition, which has been prepared by Matthews a*ul Clarke, solicitors, of Auckland, Mcniat states that the details of the alleged crime were of such a sensational and revolting nature that strong public feeling was aroused against him, and the atmosphere was prejudicial to his receiving a fair trial. He admits that he did not tender evidence at his trial. The reason was that the evidence of the Crown was of such an improbable and flimsy nature that there appeared little likelihood of conviction, and that, by calling evidence, the defence would lose its right of final address to the jury. BURNING OF BODY Regarding the alleged burning of the body, the petitioner points to the fact that the only available furnaces or places for burning the quantities of bleeding remains were the fiieplace under the copper, an open fireplace in the dining-room and rubbish fires in the yard. I It is submitted that the Crown evidence negatives the possibility of the copper fireplace having been used for that purpose. In regard to the fireplace in the dining-room the analysis of the soot showed the presence of some fatty substance. The sinister suggestion w as -made that this would be consistent with human fat, says petitioner, but also, of course, equally with any other animal fat. He submits that any domestic open fireplace would probably show a similar condition arising from the occasional use of a frying pan, the boiling of soup or meat, or the burning of greasy paper or other odds and ends. An animal bone was actually found therein, states petitioner. Regarding rubbish fires in the yard, petitioner refers to the fact that he was seen by neighbours working and cleaning up the garden during the morning of February 20 and that he had a small rubbish fire burning. None of the alleged human bones were found in the remains of this fire. Mouat also refers to the remains of another rubbish fire (referred to in the trial as “Number 1 tirel in the yard, wherein at least one °f the alleged human bones was found. Petitioner states -hat he burned some rubbish there two inonths previously and had never since used that fire. The evidence given by Detectives Bickerdike and Hibson showed conclusively that it had not been recently used. They said that when they first examined it tall grass was growing around tae ashes. Petitioner asserts that as a murderer could have no conceivable object in deliberately placing a human bone in those cold ashes, the discovery of a human bone therein definitely establishes that such bone could not have belonged to his wife. It is strongly submitted by petitioner that it was only on the assumption that this bone formed part of the skeleton of the missing woman that it was possible to charge and convict him. That it would be a scientific impossibility to burn a body as alleged, even if the crime had been premeditated. is submitted in the affidavit of Mrs. Mary Mouat, who refers to the fact that proper furnaces or sufficient high-grade burning material was not available. This, she states, is established by the affidavit of Professor Frederick Worley, and also by the absence of evil-smelling fumes. Reference is also made to the physical impossibility of dismembering the body without leaving at least minute traces of human remains on tables, benches or floors, or on the imple-

ments so used. No such microscopic remains were discovered, states Mrs. Mouat. Mrs. Mouat also refers to the failure of such attempts to burn bodies in different parts of the world, particularly the notorious murder of Detective Walsh near Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. In that case the murderers vainly attempted to burn the body in a gold smelting furnace. Although having the advantages of an isolated locality and ample supplies of fuel, they were compelled to cast the charred remains down an old mining shaft. THREATENED TO LEAVE HIM The petition also sets out that one and a-half sets of teeth belonging to Mrs. Mouat were produced. It is stated that the half set had been discarded by Mrs. Mouat for many years and the whole set was an emergency set in case of accident. It is contended that she was wearing her usual complete set at the time of her disappearance.

Evidence is also submitted by Mrs. Mary Mouat that from Mrs. Mouat’s wardrobe a green overcoat, grey sunshine purse with . a roll of money, brown costume, brown silk stockings, brown shoes and two nightdresses were missing, also a polished wooden box containing marriage certificate, revolver and private papers. Although Mouat was In a good financial position during the time he was licensee of the Glengvy Hotel, through serious and continual leakage he had become bereft of all his money, states Mrs. M. Mouat in her affidavit. Reference is also made in the affidavit to Mrs. Nellie Mouat's associations with other men and that she had at times threatened to leave her husband. It is also stressed that it was known that Mrs. Mouat had accumulated a large sum of money in notes. It was also submitted that any evidential value of articles found in the house by the police was seriously impaired by the fact that prior to the police investigation of the house it had been visited by others, including James Heeney and Mrs. Mouat’s brother, John Bouverie Merritt. James Heeney, who died two years later, visited the house on the night of Tuesday, Febru T ary 24, and was there again on February 26. Heeney boarded at the Mouat home. SEEN ON TRAIN? In support of his contention that his wife, knowing that she could obtain no further money from him, decided to leave him, petitioner also presents affidavits from four people to the effect that they-saw Mrs. Nellie Mouat after her disappearance from her home on February 19, 1925. Thomas Holland, insurance agent, of 158 Kilmore Street, Christchurch, states that on Tuesday, March 3, 1925, -when he was living in Titnaru, he went to the station to see his wife off on a visit to Christchurch. Passing a carriage on the train he saw Mrs. Mouat sitting in a corner seat, and both nodded to each other. She was very pale and miserable looking. He mentioned the matter to his wife and later, when he read in the papers that she had disappeared, he also remarked upon it to a Mr. Bennett, who was then bailiff at the Magistrate’s Court at Timaru. Mr. Bennett advised him to communicate the information to the police, and he then saw Inspector Willis and SeniorSergeant Fahey. Eater, Detective Le Suer took a lengthy statement from him concerning the incident. He knew the Mouats well, as they had put all their insurance business through him. A statement to the effect that he saw Mrs. Mouat on the Little River train on the night of March 3 is given by Ernest George Hunter, railway guard, residing at 60 Whiteleigh Avenue, Addington, Christchurch. He states that the woman, who looked ill and unkempt, alighted at Motukarara. Owing to this fact and also the fact that she was a stranger, he took particular notice of her. She had a flimsy salmon pink dress on, no coat, a dark hat and dark shoes. The following Tuesday he saw the woman get on board the train at Motukarara and travel to Christchurch, returning the same night. She looked ill and unkempt and, as on the previous occasion. had no luggage. He thought about the woman a great deal, and when he was at home it dawned upon him that it was the woman, Mrs. Nellie Mouat, whose photograph had been published in the Christchurch "Sun.” He told his wife about it, remarking, “Fancy not remembering who she was.” The following day h<“ informed Detective Eade, who took an account of it from him. Herbert Edward Williams, of Monck’s Bay, Redcliffe, and manager of the Cashle Street branch shops owned by R. Hanpah and Co., has also given a statement to the effect that Mrs. Nellie Mouat bought a pair of shoes from his shop, and also left a pair for repairs, about three w r eeks prior to her reported disappearance. The police became aware of this and gave instructions that any person calling :

for them was to be -detained. On the day that her photograph appeared in the papers a woman called for the shoes and was recognised by himself and two assistants as Mrs. Nellie Mouat. He told her that he could not give her the shoes and she said that she would call later. She said, "X think something serious has happened to Mrs. Mouat,” and, asking them not to tell the detectives that she had been in, left the shop. NOT CALLED AT TRIAL The chief-detective w r as immediately informed and was told that she had been recognised by himself and

two assistants. They were certain that that was the woman whose photograph had appeared in the Christchurch “Sun.” Later the chief detective told him that he, had found the woman, and that she was not Mrs. Mouat, but a relative. Seeing that three of them had recognised the woman to be Mrs. Mouat, he thought this w-as very strange. He believed those facts to be true in every particular.

Further evidence as to having seen whom she believed to be Mrs. Nellie Mouat is given by Irene Harrison, a married woman residing at Jackson’s Road, Lyttelton. Mrs. Harrison said that in April, 1925, she was spending a holiday in Invercargill and in Dee Street saw a woman closely resembling Mrs. Mouat. She was wearing a dark hat, and a navy blue costume, with a high neck. Her sister, Mary Anderson, was walking behind and witness hurried back to tell her, but before she could speak her sister said, “There goes Mrs. Mouat.” They informed their uncle, who said they should have told the police. However, no action was taken at the time. She and her sister had known Mr. and Mrs. Mouat in Waimate, and felt positive that the person they saw was either Mrs. Mouat or somebody strongly resembling her. Referring to these statements, freely given in the interests of justice, Mouat states that various people informed the police prior to the trial that they had seen Mrs. Mouat since her disappearance. The police, according to Mouat’s statement, no doubt acting in accordance with their honest opinions, apparently took the responsibility of treating these statements as incredible, or otherwise unreliable, as none of these witnesses were produced at the trial.

He submitted that in a matter of such gravity all these witnesses should have been called by the Crown, as it was the duty of the judge and jury to ascertain the credibility, or otherwise, of such evidence.

He further submits that a reconsideration of the whole circumstances discloses no grounds sufficient to find him guilty of manslaughter, the onus whereof, according to British law and justice, rests on the prosecution. Although the onus does not rest on the accused to prove his innocence, nevertheless, by the efforts of a devoted friend who believes him to be an innocent victim, he feels confident that if given an opportunity he will not only be enabled to prove that he should, not have been convicted, but to establish his complete innocence.

He petitions that his Excellency, in Council, may be pleased to exercise the Royal prerogative and order the quashing of the conviction, or pardon the prisoner, or appoint a commission or some other proper tribunal with full powers to grant such relief in the premises as may be just.