BOY THOUGHT-BEADER.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 January 1921, Page 7

BOY THOUGHT-BEADER.

ALLEGED FORTUNE TELLING. CHARGES AGAINST “ARGUS.” SEQUEL TO ENTERTAINMENT. Three charges arising out of a thought reading performance at the Hippodrome Theatre, Auckland, on December 30 were preferred against Charles Louis Copeland, professional entertainer, and his son, Argus Nathaniel Julius Copeland, aged 11 years, before Mr. J. W. Poynton, Auckland Police Court this week. The charges, which were laid under the Justices of the Peace Act, were as follows:—(1) That the accused did undertake to tell fortunes; (2) did pretend from skill and knowledge in occult and crafty sciences, to discover where and in what manner any goods and chattels, supposed '"to have been stolen or lost, may be foupd; (3) used subtle craft to deceive and impose upon His Majesty’s subjects. The chief detective said that similar charges had been laid in the Christchurch Court some weeks ago, when the Magistrate had agreed to an adjournment sine die, in order that the case, might be heard in Auckland, so as not to interfere with defendant’s theatrical engagements. STATEMENT OF FACTS AGREED TO. A statement of facts, agreed to by the police and by the defendants, was handed into the Court, in connection with the performance on December 30. This statement asserted that Argus’ performance was prefaced by a short speech by his father. He claimed that the boy possessed certain telepathic powers, which enable him to read the father’s mind. The father claimed that Argus could always “take” his mind, and. sometimes the minds of others, but said he did not guarantee that he could “take” everybody’s mind. He further claimed that Argus, when he got into a “deeper state,” became clairvoyant, and would answer any questions that anyone in the audience might ask The father then went down among the audience, members of which handed him sundry articles, which he looked at. The boy in every case described what the various articles were. Questions were also written by spectators relating to articles which had been lost or stolen, and Argus stated what he considered had happened in each case. Many of the questions related to things pertaining to the future, and Argus stated that certain things would or would not happen, at some future time, generally stating in how many days, months, or years the things would happen. The boy appeared to be in first-class health and spirits, and his education was in the hands of a private tutor who travelled with the party. CONTENTIONS FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr. Fleming said that intent to deceive the public must be an ingredient in the facts of the case if such facts were to constitute an offence. He contended that this was understood in the words “undertook to tell,” which appeared in the first charge. In the case before the Court there was no intent to* deceive, and the facts did not amount to undertaking to tell the future within the meaning of the clause in the Act. Regarding the alleged use of subtle craft to deceive, counsel said that mental suggestion and telepathy, which underlay Argus’ feats, could not be fairly designated by that term. He quoted from Waldon, and other authorities on psychology, to show that hypnotism, which, he said, was allied to I telepathy, was a well-recognised science. He attributed the phenomenon displayed by Argus to the exaltation of the human faculties, which enabled such persons to receive mental impressions from other minds, and from the data so gleaned to predict the future. Such powers were natural in origin and not supernatural. Argus had the power to attract thought, and the fact that many people thought it an impossibility wag no reason for denying its scientific basis. COMMENTS BY MAGISTRATE. “That is the pity of it,” was the Magistrate’s comment. “People know so very little about the subject. It is shockingly neglected.” Mr. Poynton quoted several interesting examples of the phenomena that had come under his notice, including the extraordinary powers of an old blind dog in Christchurch, which performed such inexplicable feats as tapping four times on the ground with its paw when asked the square root of 16, and indicating the time on a watch by its barks. Argus’ powers were evidently something of the like thing. “It is a great pity the boy is not properly experimented with,” said Mr. Poynton. “As long as this subject is treated as humbug, a fraud, and sheer nonsense, it will never receive the investigation it deserves.” Mr. Rogers: I am very glad Your Worship thinks there is something in it. Mr. Poynton: There is no doubt about the force of it. The Magistrate said that while telepathic results had been obtained frequently by trickery, such as the employment of mechanical devices, or the ruse of a code, the manifestations in question appeared to be of a genuine order. He had himself, he said, personally tested the boy’s powers. ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF FACULTIES. Charles Louis Copeland, in evidence, said he was convinced his son was possessed of wonderful faculties. He described how these faculties had first come to his notice, and said that when he first introduced him to the theatre the performance was confined strictly to telepathy. His advance agent, however, on one occasion, advertised the boy as being able to tell the future, and he allowed his son to answer one or two questions from the public stage, merely to keep faith with the public and his agent. To his surprise he discovered that his son actually possessed clairvoyant gifts, and he received numerous letters from people, who voluntarily affirmed the accuracy of prophecies made concerning them. A number of these letters and telegrams were read in Court.

Evidence to vouch for the accuracy of Argus’s prophecies as to the future was given, among others, by John Millard, photographic artist, Joseph Archibald Blair, theatre proprietor, Rotorua, and Reginald Sarsfield, comedian, all of whom recounted incidents from their own experiences. As there were still several witnesses to appear for the defence, the magistrate decided to adjourn further hearing. The ease, he said bore on the question jjf intent to deceive. Mr. Poitou

pressed a desire to try a few experiments with the boy, in order to prove the contention that Argus could read what was passing in his father’s mind. It was a greed by Mr. Poynton and defending counsel that the courtroom was not the best place in which to impose tests on the lad, and it was therefore decided that the boy should give a private exhibition of his powe'rs to the magistrate, in the presence of the police and representatives of the press.