At two o'clock on the afternoon of the 2nd last, a girl named Bella Bell, while gathering firewood at Mr Bland's paddock, near the railway station, Blueskin, found a box with a label on the lid, on which was written in large letters the following words: "If you find my motherless darling, I pray for Jesus's sake bury it in the true Catholic way." The girl immediately reported the matter to Constable Moroney, who is stationed in the district, and on going to the place he found a soap-box as described. It was tied systematically with small twine, and on opening it the constable found the body of a male child, apparently eight or ten years old, in a perfect state. There were no marks of violence on the body, and the child was dressed in a neat and respectable manner. It is supposed that the box was left there by a passenger by the evening train on Monday, and doubtless the matter will be cleared somewhat at the inquest on Thursday. -ES, 5/3/1878.
INQUEST.
An inquest was held at the Hospital at noon today on the body of the infant child found in a soapbox at Blueskin on Saturday last. There were fourteen jurymen, and Mr A. R. Hay was chosen foreman. Mr Inspector Mallard conducted the proceedings on behalf of the police.
The District Coroner (Mr T. M. Hocken) said: This is a case, gentlemen, requiring, as you will agree with me, thorough investigation. On Saturday morning a little girl was passing through Blueskin bush to the railway station when she saw a box, and further discovery showed that this contained the body of a dead child, and there the matter ended for a few days. Now, however, evidence will be brought to identify the child and the mother, who is not present, and it will therefore be necessary to adjourn the inquiry for her presence. However, it is advisable that as much evidence as could be presented to you should be given as soon as possible. I have no more to say just at present, but the evidence discovered will be offered and then I can adjourn the inquiry until another time. Yon know as well as I do how difficult it is to discover — not a case of infanticide, for there is no proof whatever of that in this case — but where children are secreted in this manner it is very difficult indeed to trace them, and it reflects very great credit on the police that in this case they have been so successful in following the matter up.
Isabella Bell, nine years old, deposed: I live with my father, Cole Bell, a carpenter, at Blueskin. On Saturday afternoon last, about 2 o'clock, I went into the bush to gather some wood. Mary Alexander and Mary Popperly went with me. A good way in the bush I saw a box lying on the ground. It was on the side of the bush.
Helen Pepperill: I live at Blueskin with my husband, Evans. Last Saturday afternoon my boy and Bella Bell went to gather wood in the bush. Soon after they came back and told me there was a box in the bush. I said it might be an old feed-box. Bella said that it was a box tied down with string and a label on it. Maggie Bell, who was in my house, suggested that we should go and see the box. We went into the bush near the railway station, and about a road's breadth from the railway fence came across the box. It was quite exposed, and not covered with any bush. The box now produced is the same. It was tied up with cord. The envelope produced, on which is written "If you find my motherless darling I pray, for Jesus sake, bury it in the true Catholic way," was under the cord. I then sent for the police, waiting till Constable Rooney came. He opened the box and I saw the dead body of a male baby. It was lying on its side and back, with its head turned a little. I then went with the constable to the Police Station and further examined the child. I noticed that it was very nicely dressed, and seemed well cared for. [The clothes were here produced.] The child was black all round its neck, but there were no marks of violence. Something came from its nose, but I cannot say whether it was blood. The body looked white and nice. It looked a plump little thing, and had apparently been well cared for. The mark round the neck was the only discoloration I noticed. When I first noticed this blackness I thought the child had been choked. The child looked about a fortnight or three weeks old. I never noticed any person walking in the bush near where the box was found. My children had been gathering wood in the bush the day before, but I cannot say in what part.
Isabella Bell: After school on Friday we were in the same part of the bush. The box was not there then.
Bartholomew Moroney, constable of police stationed at Blueskin, deposed: On Saturday, about two o'clock in the afternoon, a girl named Maggie Bell came to the station and told me that a box had been found in the bush with something written on it. She appeared to be in an excited state, and I went with her to where the box was. The box which I now produce was lying in the bush near the Blueskin railway station, and about thirty yards from the railway fence. There is a track close by used by the public going from the township to the railway. There was no appearance of concealment. I looked but could not notice any footsteps. On opening the box I found the body of a male child dead, lying on its back with the head turned a little on the right shoulder. I brought the box to the station and with Mrs Pepperell examined the child. I noticed that the lower portion of the body — the groins and a little down the thighs — were blue, such as is seen in dead bodies. The body was quite fresh. I looked pretty sharp over the body, but did not observe any mark about its neck. On the inside of the lid of the box and on one side is printed "Saint Mungo Concentrated Soap."
Nora Ann Bobannah said: I live at Port Chalmers and am a nurse there. I recognise the clothes produced— baby linen. They belonged to Mrs Canter. I put them on her child. I sewed the inside flannel. This Mrs Canter came to my house to be confined on the 14th of February. She told me that she had come from Melbourne two months before, and had been in Timaru. She had also been a week at Mr Dench's hotel before coming to me. She was confined of a little boy — a full grown child — the day after she came to my house between 4 and 5 a.m. I saw the baby on Wednesday last, lying in the hospital. To the best of my belief it was Mrs Canter's baby. The clothing was the same, and I recognised it by the nose — something like a Jewish nose. The mother did not nurse the child. She told me she had brought np four children on the bottle. I fed it. Five days after it was born it had a sort of convulsing attack, lasting a few minutes. Its head rolled and it lay quite still. I gave it a dose of castor oil, and it then got better. It had no other illness. The mother stayed with me for ten days and then went to Dunedin, leaving her baby with me for two days longer. She came back on Tuesday, the 26th ult., and asked me if I got a letter from her. I told her I had not been to the post, and she told me she had sent me a letter. I got the letter next day. That produced is the same. It has the Dunedin post-mark of the 25th. [The letter, which was signed M. A. Canter, was read. It stated that the writer was getting on fine, but found the houses in Dunedin too high. She was staying with some friends, and wished Mrs Bohannah to have the child's clothes made up on the Tuesday, so that she might take it away.] Witness continued: When she went away on the Sunday I thought she did not take to the baby as a mother should, and was afraid she would leave it with me. When she came down on the Tuesday night she expressed astonishment at my harboring a thought of her deserting her child. She then left my house with the baby, stating her determination to ask a Mr Jones, who lives near the Upper Port Chalmers station, whether she could remain there all night, in order to catch the Blueskin train next morning. When she let, about six o'clock, the baby was quite well. She also took some spare clothes for the baby, and a small bag. Next morning about nine o'clock I went up to Jones's. Seeing Mrs Canter, I asked her about the baby. She said he was first-rate, and closed the door in my face. I turned away. Meeting Mr Jones, I asked him about Mrs Canter, and he said she was going by the eleven train. I never saw Mrs Canter again. On leaving my house she told me that she expected to see her brother.
Dr Drysdale attended Mrs Canter in her confinement. She had a male child, healthy and full grown. He had seen the body yesterday, and believed it to be that of the same child. When he saw the child last on the 23rd ult. it appeared to be perfectly healthy; and although Mrs Canter said she expected it would not live long, he had told her he saw nothing wrong with it.
Thomas Jones, a shipwright at Port Chalmers, stated that Mrs Canter had stayed in his house on the night of Tuesday, the 26th ult. He had not seen the baby, but heard it cry during the night. She left his house about ten the next morning to catch the Blueskin train going to Dunedin, and then had the baby in her arms. About twenty minutes to twelve on Saturday night last he happened to be at the Port Chalmers station when the last train from town came in, and he saw Mrs Canter and her two children leave by it. She had no baby with her then.
Kate O'Brien, servant, at the house of Mr Boaz, Port Chalmers, gave evidence to the effect that a woman with two children came to the house about midnight on Saturday last and went away next morning in the Samson for Oamaru. The woman told witness she kept an hotel in Dunedin, and gave her name, but that she could not remember — she was sure it was not Canter. The woman seemed to be upset about something, and she hardly slept at all, but walked about the room most of the night.
The Coroner, at this stage, intimated that this was all the evidence then forthcoming, and adjourned the inquiry till Wednesday, the 13th inst., at 2 o'clock, for the production of Mrs Canter. -Evening Star, 8/3/1878.
THE BLUESKIN MYSTERY.
The hearing of evidence in the inquest on the body of the infant found in a soap-box at Blueskin on Saturday, the 23rd of February, which had been adjourned in order that Mrs De Costa (previously referred as Mrs Cantor) should be present, was continued at the Hospital to-day, before the coroner (Mr Hocken) and a jury of fourteen. Inspector Mallard watched the proceedings on behalf of the police, and Mr Denniston appeared for Mrs Da Costa.
The Coroner: "Well, gentlemen, this inquest was adjourned last Saturday for the production of Mrs De Costa, the mother of the child, who is now present.
Mr Denniston: Has that been proved yet — that Mrs De Costa is the mother of the child? I appear for a Mrs De Costa who has been summoned to appear as a witness.
The Coroner: Well, I will say the supposed mother is present. I think it is advisable that she should now hear the evidence which was given on Saturday, the 2nd inst.
The Coroner then proceeded to read the evidence, and then asked Mrs Bohanna if the lady now present was the lady who was confined at her house on February 15.
Mrs Bohama identified the lady as the same person.
Catherine Wisliart, boarding-house keeper in Rattray street, deposed as follows: I know the lady now present. She boarded with me for a week, from the 24th ult. to the 2nd inst. She had written answering an advertisement, stating that I had a bedroom and sitting-room to let, and she said that she would take them for herself and two children. [Letter dated Blueskin, February 8, and signed "M. A. De Costa," produced. The latter asked that a reply be sent to the Port Chalmers Post Office.] I agreed to let her the rooms, and on the 24th ult. she arrived, an expressman named Charley bringing her boxes up from the railway station the day before. She brought a boy and a girl with her. She stayed in the house all that day (Sunday), but was out all one night in the week, coming back the next day. I could not swear whether it was on Tuesday or Wednesday night that she was out. She said she was going to Blueskin, but not what she was going for. She said she might be back that night, or might not, but would be back the next day. She went some time after one o'clock, taking the little boy with her, and came back the morning following. She brought a small parcel in with her, I think. She said she had enjoyed her trip. She went in and out of the house every day, and was away for a few hours on the Thursday or Friday. On the 2nd inst. she left, saying that she was going to Timaru by the boat and would go down to the Port overnight. She never mentioned having a new-born baby, and I never saw anything to lead me to suspect that she had one. She one day asked me for a box to send some fruit to Timaru in, and I gave her a box. I fancy it was a larger box than the one now produced. I do not think I ever saw the box produced before the police showed it me the other day. I think that the box I gave her was smoother than this one, and the paper inside was red and had white letters on it. She told me she sent it away with the fruit to her children at Timaru. I made her bed every day, and never noticed anything particular in the room. There were several little parcels and a black bag there, which I used to move about when I was tidying the room.
Christopher Daniel, 11 years of age, son of Mrs Wishart by her first husband, gave similar evidence as to the arrival and departure of Mrs De Costa. He did not know the box produced. He got a cab for her on the first day of the races (February 28) at about two o'clock. She and her two children got into the cab, taking with her a parcel wrapped up in green glazed cloth. It was a round parcel, nearly as broad as it was long — about 15in each way, and 12in high. He held the parcel, which felt soft, as it shawls were inside it. It was quite light, weighing about 21bs. On the Saturday when Mrs De Costa left she had the same parcel with her.
To Mr Denniston: Witness did not think Mrs De Costa had any wraps with her on getting into the cab on the Thursday.
Thomas Matheson, railway guard on the Blueskin line, recognised Mrs De Costa. On February 28 she travelled by the 2 o'clock train from Dunedin to Blueskin. She had a boy and girl with her. Witness did not know of her having any parcel with her. He saw her get out of the train at Blueskin, but did not see in what direction she went. She returned by the o'clock train.
George Grantham Wellstead, postmaster and telegraphist at Blueskin, recognised Mrs De Costa, having seen her at the Blueskin station on the 28th ult. talking to the station-master. A boy and girl were with her. She had a shawl or something with her, because witness remembered her asking if she could leave it in the ladies' waiting room. She placed it there, and witness shut the door. Witness had been talking to her for about ten minutes. She then walked up to the Saratoga Hotel to get tea, and witness caught her up and showed her the dining-room. He left her there, and came back in about an hour and had tea with her. After tea witness took her and the children about the township till the train left for Dunedin. While Mrs De Costa was on the platform what she had on her arm could not possibly have been the box produced.
To Mr Denniston: The parcel, or whatever it was, may have been a bundle of wraps. Mrs De Costa made the remark that she had come prepared for rain.
Isaiah de Zouche, duly-registered medical practitioner practising in Dunedin, deposed that he, in conjunction with Drs Mannsell and Tigue, on the 8th instant made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased child. It was of a male child, well-developed, over a fortnight old. There were no external marks of violence, but decomposition was beginning. There was congestion of the lungs and of the brain. The child might have been dead five or six days, judging from the internal organs. There was no mark on the neck. The face and ears had a pink flush, such as would occur in cases of death from obstruction of respiration. The lungs were in the first stage of inflammation. Witness judged the congestion to be active. There was congestion of the veins of the spinal cord, which had not been previously examined. there seemed to have been post mortem digestion of the stomach This is a very rare occurrence. There was no evidence of the presence of any irritant poison, from an examination of the month and the upper part of the gullet. There was a small pustule on the right thigh, and there were signs of evacuation on the thighs. The tongue was not swollen, and did not protrude against the teeth. The heart appeared perfectly healthy. The brain had a great deal of venous congestion. The bowels seemed perfectly healthy. Referring to the congestion of the lungs, it is possible for passive to pass into active congestion, and it would then be difficult to say which is uppermost. In witness's opinion this child's death could not be assigned to one definite cause — the appearances were quite compatible with natural causes, such as convulsions, which would cause obstruction to breathing, or exposure to cold or catching cold. Anything, however, that would cause obstruction to the respiration would cause these appearances, such as a temporary ligature round the neck, or smothering; but witness did not think the appearances in this case were attributable to either of the latter. There was no evidence of death having been caused by drowning. The child died from some cause obstructing the respiration.
Drs Mansell and Tighe remain to be examined. -Evening Star, 13/3/1878.
THE BLUESKIN MYSTERY.
The adjourned inquiry into the Blueskin mystery took place at the Hospital at two o'clock this afternoon. As on previous occasions, Inspector Mallard watched the proceedings on behalf of the police, and Mr Denniston appeared in the interests of Mrs De Costa. The only witness examined was
Mrs Grace Laing, who said: I live at Port Chalmers with my husband, who is Town Clerk. The day before the races — on Wednesday, the 27th — I had occasion to come to town. I came to Dunedin by the 11.30 a.m. train from the Upper Port Chalmers station. This lady — Mrs De Costa — was sitting in the station with what I took to be a baby wrapped up in a white woollen shawl. I did not hear it cry, nor did I see it move. She had a little boy with her. Whilst we were standing at the station waiting for the train she spoke to my little girl, asking her to bring her little boy a cake. She also remarked that the train was late, and that it was a fine morning. When the train came in we went into different carriages — this lady getting into one nearer the engine than I. I saw no more of her until we got to Dunedin. There were only four people, as far as I can recollect, who got into the train at the Port. On arriving at Dunedin I saw Mrs De Costa in the act of getting into a cab which had backed up to a square opening. A little girl with a blue dress on was standing close beside her, apparently waiting till this lady got in. I did not actually see the lady in the cab. She did not pass the cab, but had her dress raised as though in the act of getting into the cab. I saw no more of her. I couldn’t say who brought the cab there, but there was a man at the horse’s head. There were not many passengers by the train, and they had nearly all passed away when I saw this lady near the cab. I thought afterwards that what I took to be a baby in this lady’s arms was not a baby, as she was not nursing it carefully.
On reading over the evidence to the witness Mr Denniston objected to the witness drawing inferences as to whether Mrs De Costa went into the cab or not. That would be usurping the functions of a jury. Ultimately it was agreed that the Coroner should put the questions only, and simply read the answers of the witness.
The Coroner: Are you reasonably certain that she got into the cab? — Witness; I am almost certain that she did.
The Coroner: Why so? — Witness: I am almost certain she did so from the position she was in. She was stepping into the cab, and was in the act of what I would suppose to be lifting her dress with her hand.
The Coroner: Where was the little boy then? Witness: She was getting in first, the boy on one side and the girl on the other. There was no one near the cab but themselves. The lady still had the woollen shawl on her arm. I never saw her before that morning.
By the Jury: I did not notice the shawl particularly. It was white, and I think a heavy woollen one. It did not seem strange to me that she went info a different carriage from me, as she went first-class and I travelled second-class.
Mr Denniston: What you tell us really amounts to this — that she appeared to be going into the cab, but you cannot tell where she went to? — Witness: Yes.
The Coroner said that there was only one farther piece of evidence that he had to put before the jury, viz., the two envelopes, both of which were bought from Braithwaite — one with the inscription thereon “If you find my darling," &c., and the other that addressed to Mrs Bohanna. He should have liked, in the interests of Mrs De Costa and also in the interests of justice, to have recalled Mrs Bohanna and Dr Drysdale, as there were numerous discrepancies between their evidence and that of Mrs De Costa.
Mr Denniston replied that he was quite content, so far as the interests of his client were concerned, to accept the evidence as it was.
The Coroner then proceeded to address the jury. He said that in the first place there was no doubt as to the identity of the child. The jury might take it that it was proved that the child was that of Mrs De Costa, born on the 15th of February. The important part of the verdict would be to say from what cause the child died. There was very little doubt that it died at Jones’s house either on the 26th or 27th, when ten or eleven days old, and it would now be for the jury to say whether that death was produced by natural or unnatural causes. Very often the medical evidence was of the greatest importance in leading to a conclusion, as for instance where death was occasioned by the rupture of a blood vessel. In the case under their notice, however, the evidence was not of that positive nature as to enable them to come to a definite conclusion, and therefore they would have to conjoin it with the other evidence. The medical witnesses had said that the child died from an obstruction of the breathing. Now that was a very wide term, for obstruction of the breathing might arise from a variety of causes. Those witnesses gave as possible causes of death, convulsions and exposure to the cold, and specified others, such as drowsing, strangulation, or suffocation by a pillow. [One of the jury here interposed that laudanum had also been mentioned, but the Coroner explained that that would not produce symptoms such as those presented by the body. Mrs De Costa certainly had said that she gave the child a small dose in a teaspoonful of milk, but that could not do much harm or good. If death was due to that cause, there had certainly been a greater quantity given to the child than was spoken of.] The evidence in favor of the theory of death from convulsions was that given by Mrs De Costa, who stated that the child had suffered from convulsions every day and night since it had been born, and that on the night she was at Jones’s in particular it kept on turning up its eyes in a deathlike manner.
Mr Denniston would like to correct the Coroner. It was not on the night Mrs De Costa was at Jones’s, but some time previously, that the child looked so bad.
The Coroner proceeded to say that it was not in evidence, but he might as well tell the jury that screaming was no sign of convulsions. If convulsions produced suffocation the child would have no breath left for screaming, and it was a fair conclusion that if the child could not breathe it could not scream. Against the idea of suffocation by convulsions was the evidence of Mrs Bohanna and Dr Drysdale, both of whom said the child was a healthy one, and had never had a day’s or an hour’s sickness until the night of the 26th, when, Mrs Bohanna said, it had a convulsive fit. If they find that the child had a convulsive fit on that night, the jury were entitled to ask why Mrs De Costa did not get assistance. She herself gave a fair reason — viz, that she did not wish her condition to be known by her friends; but at the same time it must he borne in mind that Mr Jones knew she had had a child — and also Mrs Bohanna and Dr Drysdale. It would, however, be fair to attach as much weight as they could to Mrs De Costa’s statement that she was anxious to avoid an exposure of her disgrace, and that would also explain why she had adopted a false name, and told a barmaid the story about her husband having gone away to Melbourne. The evidence of the medical witnesses was quite consonant with the idea that the child died from convulsions, but the jury must take their evidence, as he had said before, conjointly with that of the other witnesses. The medical men did not say that convulsions were the cause of death— they simply say that something similar to convulsions was the cause. Then as to the chances of death from what he might call unnatural causes. The first witness said that she saw a mark round the neck of the child similar to that which would be produced by a ligature. That statement might be put aside, as neither the policeman nor anyone else saw such a mark as that described. Then there was the possibility that the child was overlaid in the night. It was quite likely that, overpowered by sleep, the mother might have rolled over and smothered the child accidentally; but, as he had said before, all these things must be considered together as one piece of evidence. There was a good deal of mystery about the visit to Blueskin, but one portion of the time could be accounted for very easily. It was in evidence that Mrs De Costa arrived at the Blueskin station at eight minutes past three in the afternoon, and that she then went up to the hotel and had a glass of lemonade, which would bring it up to a quarter to four. No one saw her after that till a quarter to five, when she was seen talking to the telegraph clerk, who afterwards saw her take a walk up the line with the children. The jury had a choice of three verdicts — first; that the child died from natural causes, which, as indicated by the medical evidence, would he convulsions; and second, that death was caused by unnatural causes, such as smothering. If the jury could agree to neither of these, there was a third course open to them, viz, to return an open verdict, in which they could say that while the child died from obstruction of the breathing there was no evidence to show how that obstruction was caused. Such a verdict would allow further inquiry to be made into the matter.
Mr Denniston urged that the whole Blueskin episode should have been ignored, as being ludicrous on the face of it, but as it had been referred to he asked the Coroner to point out to the jury that it was impossible for Mrs Da Costa to have taken with her so large a box as that found at Blueskin without it being observed by some of the witnesses.
A juryman asked it they required to give a unanimous verdict.
The Coroner: It must be a verdict of twelve. After about twenty minutes’ retirement the jury brought in a verdict — “That the child died from suffocation at the hands of its mother."
Mr Denniston: That I take to be an open verdict.
The Coroner: No.
The Foreman (in reply to the Coroner): Our verdict is: — “That the child died wilfully at the hands of its mother.”
The Coroner: That, in plain terms, is a verdict of murder against the mother?
The Foreman: Yes.
Mrs De Costa (who had just entered the room) here exclaimed: Do you think I would murder my child?
Mr Denniston would ask the Coroner to draw the jury’s attention to the fact that there was no support for such a verdict in the medical evidence.
The Coroner; Well, there is support in it. It would support the jury in a verdict of smothering, and in a verdict of death from convulsions.
Mr Denniston thought that from the evidence there were practically only two issues before the Jury —one, death from natural causes, the other an open verdict, and he could not help expressing his surprise at the verdict just retrned. The Foreman thought the jury were fully alive to the importance of their verdict.
The Coroner: I should be very sorry to record a verdict like that just given unless I thought you were quite certain, but at the same time I wish you to understand that, as a coroner and a magistrate, I quite endorse such a verdict.
Mr Denniston: By which you mean, I understand, as far as law is concerned?
The Coroner: I mean to say that if they brought in either of the three I have indicated it would be a perfectly legal verdict.
Mr Denniston thought it most extraordinary and monstrous on the part of the Coroner to say that he endorsed the verdict. That was prejudging the matter in a manner he had never heard of before.
A jurymen here suggested that the jury should concede the point raised, and reconsider their verdict.
This having been agreed to the jury again retired for about ten minutes, and on returning,
The Foreman said, in answer to the Coroner, that their verdict was the same as before — “Wilful murder at the hands of the mother.”
After the verdict had been duly entered, Mrs De Costa was arrested on the Coroner’s warrant and conveyed to the gaol. -Evening Star, 18/3/1878.
In connection with the Blueskin mystery, and the charge of murder against Mrs. De Costa, some unusual circumstances have transpired. It will be remembered that at the close of the coroner's inquest, Mre. De Costa was committed for trial for the assumed murder of her infant, the evidence being of a very doubtful character. In the Supreme Court the Grand Jury threw out the bill against her, and under ordinary circumstances Mrs. De Costa would have been discharged. The Crown Prosecutor then intimated that he intended to indict her on the Coroner's inquisition. This announcement seems to have taken Mr Justice Johnston by surprise, and he inquired if the Crown Prosecutor knew of any case in which, after the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill, the Coroner's inquisition had been proceeded upon? The Crown Prosecutor could not state a case coming within his own knowledge, whereupon his Honor said he never recollected in his own experience in England of the Coroner's inquisition being proceeded with after the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill. He, however, told the Crown Prosecutor that if he, as adviser of the Crown and protector of the public, was of opinion that the finding of the Grand Jury was wrong, and that the case was one for a true bill, he should act upon that opinion and proceed. The Crown Prosecutor said he thought the finding of the Grand Jury was right — nevertheless, he adopted the strange course of proceeding against Mrs. De Costa, who was accordingly indicted on the Coroner's inquisition for having murdered a male child. Then the Crown Prosecutor declared that he did not intend to offer any evidence, whereupon his Honor, addressing the jury, said: — "You have been balloted to determine whether this person is to be found guilty or not upon the Coroner's inquisition. The learned counsel who has charge of the administration of justice in this respect considers it no part of his duty to offer evidence, inasmuch as the Grand Jury, upon full consideration of the whole of the evidence, have found no true bill against her. You are sworn to give your verdict according to the evidence, and as no evidence has been offered it is your duty to return a verdict of not guilty." The jury at once acquitted the prisoner, who was then discharged. Altogether, this seems to have been a curiously cumbrous piece of business, when Mrs. De Costa could have been at once set at liberty on the finding of the Grand Jury. -Evening Post, 9/4/1878.
A mere snippet, but an interesting one, comes from an election meeting of the time:
The De Costa case was then mentioned, and Mr Dench's opinion upon it asked, Mr Dench said he had spoken to one of the Grand Jurors in Oamaru recently about the case, and had been told that the bill had been thrown out after a discussion of two and a-half hours for the reason that the medical evidence differed as to the cause of death. -Otago Daily Times, 10/4/1878.
With regard to the recent trial of Mrs De Costa, the Dunedin Herald makes the following remarks: — The views which we recently expressed upon the impropriety of Coroners assuming the functions of Police Magistrates have since received the support of so high an authority as Mr Justice Johnston, who, referring to the "Blueskin mystery " case in his recent address to the Grand Jury, said — "I confess that I regret that inquests of this sort — Coroners' inquests — should not be followed up normally by an investigation before a Magistrate, which is provided for and contemplated by law, inasmuch as of necessity the circumstances surrounding a Corner's jury are such that opportunity is not sufficiently given for getting at all the relevant evidence affecting the case," and so on. Subsequently his Honor, feeling a natural reluctance to officially censure the Coroner without abundant cause, qualified his observations by saying that inasmuch as the investigation in the present instance was conducted by the Police, it was probable that no further evidence would have been elicited had the accused been examined before a Magistrate. We should, however, have liked to hear Judge Johnston's views upon that peculiar and most objectionable form of proceeding at Coroner's inquests, by which a person is examined in the free and easy fashion which characterises such inquiries, and is then committed for trial upon his own testimony. Taking away her own evidence how much was left to prove Mrs de Costa guilty of the awful crime with which she was charged before the Supreme Court? Even with that superadded, the accumulation of testimony against her was singularly weak. The summing-up of the Coroner and the verdict of the jury excited the utmost astonishment, for whatever proof there may have been of an improper disposal of the dead body, the whole of the evidence — notably the medical part of it — was quite consistent with the theory that the child died from natural causes. -Grey River Argus, 12/4/1878.
Who was "Mrs De Costa, alias Cantor"? It seems she was a publican, a widow who had taken on her late husband's business. A few months after the "Blueskin Mystery" of 1878 the transfer of a hotel license in Lyttelton was made to her. In 1879 she was adjudged bankrupt. In 1882 she was trading in the Gisborne area, at the Turanganui hotel. In 1905 the value of her estate was published after her death.
Susan De Costa's baby boy lies buried in an unmarked grave, in the paupers' section of Dunedin's Northern Cemetery.
