EDGOOSE:
In search of Ancestry
HORRY, George Cecil
1907 - 1981 (73 years) Has 17 ancestors but no descendants in this family tree.
1885 - 1961 (76 years)-
Name HORRY, George Cecil Birth 6 May 1907 Sheffield Registration District, Yorkshire 
Gender Male Death 29 Apr 1981 Auckland, New Zealand Person ID I8024 Edgoose Last Modified 27 Jan 2026
Father HORRY, Charles Henry, b. 26 Jul 1881, Nottingham Registration District, England d. 18 Sep 1959, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 78 years) Relationship natural Mother WALCH, Lily, b. 1885, Sheffield Registration District, England d. 1961, New Zealand (Age 76 years) Relationship natural Marriage 1905 Sheffield Registration District, Yorkshire Family ID F2892 Group Sheet | Family Chart
Family 1 LOUISSON, Evelyn Edna Bates Née, b. 1906, New Zealand d. 9 Apr 1957, Sutherland, New South Wales, Australia (Age 51 years) Marriage 30 Oct 1935 Auckland, New Zealand Family ID F2935 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 27 Jan 2026
Family 2 GEALE, Eunice Marcel, b. 1915, New Zealand d. 13 Jan 2017, New Zealand (Age 102 years) Marriage 12 Dec 1942 Radio Theatre, 1Zb, Auckland, New Zealand Family ID F2948 Group Sheet | Family Chart Last Modified 27 Jan 2026
-
Notes
GEORGE CECIL HORRY 1907-1981
alias GEORGE ARTHUR TURNER
alias CHARLES ANDERSON
The birth of George Cecil HORRY was registered in 1907. According to accounts of his criminal activities and the registration of his death in 1981, he was born on 6 May 1907.
(GRO June Q 1907 Sheffield 9c 720)
(Brian W. STEPHENSON writing in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Volume V, 2000)
HIS ANTECEDENTS
Nothing particular in George Cecil HORRY's ancestry has been identified to explain why his behaviour deteriorated to such an extent that he was declared an "habitual criminal" in New Zealand and was convicted in 1951 of murdering his second wife on their honeymoon in 1942.
His paternal grandfather John Henry HORRY was convicted at Kingston-upon-Hull in 1899 of debt and was sentenced to 28 days imprisonment or payment of £1.17.0., a very minor misdemeanour. This John Henry HORRY was quite closely related to his wife Caroline née WOOD whom he married in 1877. He was himself the grandson of the John HORRY (1800-1878 who married Elizabeth THURBON at March in Cambridgeshire on 13 December 1821. John HORRY's brother James (1795-1836) married Elizabeth PICKER in 1817 and had a daughter Emma in 1828. Emma HORRY married Charles WOOD and gave birth to the Caroline WOOD who married John Henry HORRY in 1877.
Their son Charles, George Cecil HORRY's father, appears to have led a normal life in Sheffield, England, with no record of abnormality. The 1901 census records that he was working as a baker and confectioner's baker and by 1911 he was married and working as a baker's van man. By this time George Cecil was 3 years old, an only child at the time, and the family were living with his 64 year old grandmother, a retired district nurse, the epitome of respectability:
The 1911 census of 26 Francis Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield.
Elizabeth Hannah WALCH, head, aged 64, widow, 6 children of whom 5 living, district nurse, born at Handsworth, Birmingham;
Lily HORRY, daughter, aged 25, married 5 years, 1 child (living), born in Sheffield;
Charles Henry HORRY, son-in-law, aged 29, married, baker's vanman, worker, born in Nottingham;
*George Cecil HORRY, grandson, aged 3, born at Attercliffe, Sheffield.
(RG14/28003)
THE MOVE TO NEW ZEALAND
Charles Henry HORRY and his wife and three children sailed from Southampton on the s/s Pakeha for New Zealand on 9 December 1920. They arrived at the port of Lyttleton on 17 January 1921.
Chas HORRY, aged 39;
Mrs HORRY, aged 35;
*George HORRY, aged 12;
Connie HORRY; aged 6;
Arthur HORRY, aged 2.
(Ancestry: UK Outward Passenger Lists 1890-1960)
Leaving behind school friends and relations never to see them again might be a traumatic experience for any young person but in George Cecil's case it was compounded by the disbelief he may have felt when his father announced less than a year later that despite having found employment as a gas worker the whole family were to return to England. They left Wellington aboard the s/s Arawa on 10 February 1922 bound for Southampton and lived for less than a year at 10 William Road, Stapleford, Nottinghamshire:
C. H. HORRY, aged 40, gasworker;
L. HORRY, aged 36;
*G. HORRY, aged 14;
C. HORRY. aged 7;
A. HORRY, aged 2.
And back they came again, leaving the Port of London for Wellington, New Zealand, on 29 December 1922 aboard the s/s Athenic travelling 3rd class.
Chas HORRY, gas worker, aged 41;
Mrs. HORRY, wife, aged 37;
*Geo HORRY, scholar, aged 15;
Connie HORRY, aged 8;
Arthur HORRY, child, aged 3.
(New Zealand Passenger Lists on FamilySearch)
Three such voyages in a third class cabin in the space of two years must have had a de-stablising influence on any teenager.
THE YEAR 1923
"You started in crime in 1923, and have been going steadily ever since" said the Stipendiary Magistrate at the Police Court in 1932 before sentencing Horry after he pleaded guilty to five charges of obtaining goods and money by means of worthless cheques. And so it seems. A search of the British Newspaper Archives for George Cecil HORRY in Sheffield before the family left for New Zealand reveals nothing at all.
His first encounter with the Law followed an assault on a young girl which bore all the suspicions of indecent or perverted intent according to NZ Truth's eloquent Auckland reporter. On that first occasion he hid amongst the fennel at Mount Eden and jumped out on a young girl who was passing. Very unwise as it happened because she was the daughter of a warder at the prison and HORRY was apprehended. He was lucky to escape with a warning.
A few months later, at the beginning of October 1923, he was charged for the second time with assaulting a member of the opposite sex. This time the charge was indecent assault but luckily for HORRY it was reduced by the Magistrate to common assault, presumably on account of his age. Riding his bicycle at Avondale he overtook a young woman, a complete stranger. He stopped, accosted her, attempted to kiss her and, according to the eloquent reporter "further interfered". This "furthether interference" consisted of lifting up the girl's clothes and making comments about her underwear. When she screamed he let her go. "He is so quiet and innocent at home that I cannot understand it" said his father Charles Henry HORRY. "He i is never away from home at night. He has a good home and is well brought up." "Be that as it may" observed Magistrate POYNTON, "it is evident that his weakness overcomes him when walking abroad." He ended with a warning: the next time HORRY was convicted on such a charge he would be sent to gaol. On this occasion he would be put on probation for three years but this was to be his last chance.
Two months later on 13 December HORRY was again in the Police Court. He was neatly dressed and of quiet appearance and looked about four years older than records showed him to be. He pleaded guilty to 22 charges of theft, later increased to 24, in addition to a charge of failing to comply with the terms of his release on probation after being found guilty of assault. Senior Detective HAMMOND gave evidence that sixteen and a half year old HORRY had been employed by the Gas Company to read meters and took advantage of every opportunity to carry out an exhaustive search of all the likely hiding places until he located the door key. He then entered the house and pocketed any money he found, obtaining nearly £60 by this method but usually ignoring jewelry and trinkets. He then left everything tidy and replaced the key, hoping that his crime would not be discovered for some time. On one occasion the boy had been caught by the occupant returning unexpectly, but he succombed to the boy's tale of woe and allowed him to leave after emptying his pockets and returning what he had stolen. These thefts took place in the suburbs, Glemore, Kingsland, Morningside, Mount Albert, Royal Oak, Epsom and Point Chevallier districts. The boy's persistence and the similarity of the thefts led to his apprehension by the police. Detective HAMMOND told the court how HORRY had expensive tastes and did things properly. Most of the money he stole had been spent on presents such as chocolates and sweets for "lady friends". He would treat them royally with a visit to a show and a ride home in a taxi afterwards. Sometimes he bought a box of chocolates for the girl's mother too. The girls were the sort whose guardians or parents did not seem at all particular where the goods came from. Magistrate POYNTON agreed with Mr. HAMMOND that the accused had decidedly criminal tendencies and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour to be followed by three years' reformative detention.
HORRY returned to court on 20 December 1923 to face two further charges of breaking and entering and stealing goods to the value of £34 15s. He pleaded guilty and was convicted, but his sentence was not extended.
THE YEAR 1927
In April 1927 George Cecil HORRY, described as a youth of 19, was brought before the Stipendiary Magistrate Mr. F. K. HUNT at the Police Court and pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking and entering houses at Epsom, Mount Albert and Remuera between 23 February last and 5 April and stealing a total of £3 0s. 3d. The evidence revealed that the accused preyed upon unsuspecting housewives who left their house key secreted away in some insecure place during their absence. He either waited until he saw the occupiers leave their homes or had a fictitious name and purpose ready for anyone who came to the door of a house he had his eye on. His excuse was that he did not want to ask his parents for pocket money whilst he was uneemployed and he confined his activities to the theft of money or stamps left lying around. In a statement to the police HORRY stated that on leaving premises he entered he would carefully lock the door and put the keys back where he found them. "I never went through a window or got into any house by any other means than by going in the back door" he added. In the Supreme Court a week later he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for breaking and entering.
ONE HOUR OF LIBERTY IN 1929
On Tuesday, 7 May 1929, George Cecil HORRY was charged with escaping from Waikune Prison. He left the camp on Sunday afternoon and was found by one of the warders about an hour later in the bush. J.P.s W.H. SANDFORD and T. FAGG extended his current sentence by three months.
THE CRIMINAL CLASS OF 1930
When he missed his train to Wellington George Cecil HORRY stole a car worth £400 in Auckland and drove to the capital where he booked a passage to Sydney, Australia. The name of G. C. HORRY, born in 1907, appears on the passenger list for the ship Marama which left Wellington on 7 November 1930. The ticket was still in his pocket when he was arrested.
(NZ Passenger Lists on FamilySearch)
While in Wellington he attempted to pass a worthless cheque and to obtain goods by means of a false pretence. Stipendiary Magistrate T. B. McNEIL sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment on the false pretence charge and remanded him to appear at Auckland Supreme Court on 12th November to be sentenced for the car theft to which he had pleaded guilty.
Brought back to Auckland from Wellington he faced additional charges at the Police Court on 24 November 1930. He was charged with "converting to his own use" motor cars valued at £250, £400, £470, and £350; breaking and entering on 1 Novembeeer a house at Victoria Avenue and stealing a cheque book valued at 3s. 10d.; stealing a camera, a leather overcoat and a scarf valued at £9 17s. 6d.; and 16 charges of obtaining sums totalling £76 10s. 5d. by means of worthless cheques. Detective John HUNT said he interviewed the accused on 9 November. In a statement HORRY admitted breaking and entering a kitchenette window and stealing the cheque book. He also admitted issuing a number of worthless cheques between Auckland and Wellington. It was alleged that during the drive from Auckland he made out that he was the son of a prominent Auckland businessman and cashed cheques totalling £86 at petrol stations and garages, receiving £76 10s. 5d. in change. A ticket to Sydndney, Australia, was found on him when he was arrested. Mr. NOBLE, appearing for the prisoner, said: "HORRY is only 23, and he got into serious difficulties some time ago. He wanted to get out of the country and make a fresh start. There is not very much wrong with him." The Magistrate retorted: "There is so much wrong with him that he ought to be locked up altogether." He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.
On 1 December 1930 he was sentenced by Mr. Justice SMITH. The judge said to him: "You don't look as though you were a member of the criminal class, but certainly you are. You have already been admitted to probation for three years reformative detention and have been imprisoned with hard labour." He received a sentence of two years imprisonment with hard labour.
ALL AT SEA IN 1932
George Cecil HORRY was released from prison on 3 September 1932 and wasted no time in reverting to his old habits. In the Police Court on 6 October 1932 Detective-Sergeant KELLY said "If ever a man deserved to be sent to prison, it is the accused. He has 48 convictions, all but two involving dishonesty." He was charged with obtaining goods and money to the value of £46 16s. 9d. by means of worthless cheques. It was alleged that on 10 September HORRY went to the Bank of New Zealand at Wellington and claimed that he was a representative of Dorman, Long & Co. on a working holiday in New Zealand and was expecting £200 from England. He opened an account with £4 and received a cheque book. He arrived in Auckland on 12 Seeptember and booked in to the Grand Hotel under the name of Captain G. S. CUNLIFFE of Wellington. He later cashed a cheque for £5 at the office. In the afternoon he told the clerk that he would be away for the night but would return early the following morning. He cashed a cheque and left. He then went to two Queen Street firms, obtaining a hat and underware for £11 9s. and receiving £1 1s. 3d. in change from one shop and an overcoat and £4 9s. 0d. change from the other by meaeans of two cheques. Later in the day the manager became suspicious. A porter climbed through the window of an adjoining room and gained access via the fire escape. The "Captain's" room was empty except for boxes and paper wrappings bearing the name of a well known city firm of outfitters. Enquiries later revealed that the outfitters had been paid with a worthless cheque. The cheques, made out in the name of G. S. CUNLIFFE, were returned marked "no account".
HORRY left for Sydney, Australia, aboard the s/s Mariposa on the same day but was arrested on arrival as a prohibited immigrant and was deported on the same ship he arrived on. Complaints had been received by the Auckland police after HORRY had left. As a result they contacted the ship and the police in Sydney and requested that the suspect should not be allowed to land, describing Horry as an undesirable immigrant. He was locked in his cabin by the ship's officers. He was arrested on his return to New Zealand on 24 September. "Captain CUNLIFFE" alias HORRY greeted the detectives with a smile when they were introduced by the ship's officers. They encountered a man wearing a smart blue suit, patent black shoes, an equally smart grey overcoat and a fashionable hat.
On 6 October 1932 HORRY was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, to be followed by not more than three years' reformative detention. "Can you make it hard labour?" HORRY asked. "You be quiet" replied the Magistrate. "You will get what you are given." He was remanded until 13 October on a charge relating to an offence at Christchurch.
One week later, on 13 October 1932, Horry was charged with obtaining a camera valued at £5 10s. 6d. and £7 in money by means of a worthless cheque, and of converting to his own use two cars at Christchurch, an offence to which he had pleaded guilty a week earlier. Detective Sergeant KELLY said the accused was at present serving three and a half years. He was convicted and discharged.
A MARRIAGE IN 1935
In Auckland, New Zealand, on 30 October 1935, posing as an English steel magnate named George Horace COLLVER, he married Evelyn Edna BATES, a divorcee, and escorted her over the Tasman sea to Australia.
(NZ BMDs 1935/10451)
THE YEARS 1938 & 1939
Alexander WOODS, alias George Cecil HORRY, a thirty one year old motor engineer, appeared in the Police Court on 9 June 1938 charged with issuing a worthless cheque and obtaining goods and money worth £5 4s 6d. on 1 November 1935. Detective AAA. MOORE stated that he arrested the accused on the arrival of the Monterey [another report has Mariposa] from Sydney on 30 May 1938. A clerk from the Bank of New Zealand in Wellington gave evidence that the accused opened an account in the name of George Cecil HORRY in 1932 but there was no account in the name of Alexander WOODS. WOODS pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail of £100 was allowed.
HORRY appeared in the Supreme Court on 21 July 1938 under the name of Alexander WOODS, a 31 year old motor engineer. He elected to conduct his own defence. He again pleaded not guilty to the charge of obtaining money and goods from a city store on 1 November 1935 but he was unable to convince the jury and, after a retirement of two hours, they returned a verdict of guilty. During the hearing Patrick Francis FOOTE, who was a bank clerk in Wellington at the time the cheque was presesented for payment, identified the cheque and said that the cheque book had been issued in the name of George Cecil HORRY in September 1932. The credit manager of the store gave evidence that the accused tendered a cheque in payment for a smalall purchase and was given some change. He remembered that the accused said he was on his honeymoon, was a manufacturing confectioner in Lower Hutt, and was in a great hurry because he had things to do in Wellington before leaving. The cheque was later returned by the bank.
The first witness called by WOODS was James Alexander HUMPHREY, at one time employed by the Post Office Savings Bank. He stated that on 29 October 1935 a woman whom the accused stated was his wife drew £52 from the bank. Witness claimed thaat he was married under the name of COLLVER. Evidence was produced that a Mr. and Mrs. COLLVER were in the list of first-class passengers booked for Sydney on the liner Lurline which arrived in Auckland on 2 November 1935. £26 5s. 0d. passaggge money was received. Furthe evidence was produced that the sum of £6 13s. 6d. was paid to a city hotel for board and lodging for a Mr. and Mrs. COLLVER. WOODS addressed the jury but Mr. C. S. R. MEREDITH who presented the case for the Crown did not do so. He was remanded for sentence.
[A newspaper report of the sentencing has not yet been placed online by the New Zealand National Library site www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/a-z/paperspast. Summing up at a later case in 1939 Mr. Justice CALLAN revealed that George Cecil HORRY had received a light sentence of six months on this occasion and had been released from prison at 9.15 on the morning of 20 December 1938. He was re-arrested later that same evening. The judge also revealed that HORRY had served a prison sentence in Australia and had been deported to New Zealand on his release.]
At seven o'clock on the evening of 20 December 1938 31 year old George Cecil HORRY, a tailor, was arrested by Detective-Sergeant F. N. ASPLIN and Detective H. WILSON on two charges: assaulting Eva Kathleen HENDRY with intent to rob and with menenaces demanding £2 with intent to steal the money. The following day he appeared in the Police Court before the Stipendiary Magistrate Mr. C. R. Orr WALKER on the two charges. Detective-Sergeant McHUGH asked for a remand untl 28 December and said that he was instructed to oppose any application for bail. HORRY's counsel Mr. J. J. SULLIVAN applied for bail and reminded the Court: "This case cannot possibly be heard until after the legal profession vacation and it is not right that the accused should have to remain in custody for so long. After all, he is innocent until proved guilty." The magistrate said he would consider the application for bail in chambers. "In the meantime I will not grant bail" he said.
On 12 January 1939 Mr. S. J. L. HEWITT, the Stipendiary Magistrate, was on the bench and Detective-Sergeant McHugh prosecuted. The victim of the alleged assault, Mrs. E. K. HENDRY of No. 32 Armadale Road, Remuera, described the events of 20 December 1938. At 10.25 in the morning she heard a knock at the door and saw HORRY standing there. He introduced himself as an inspector for the Power Board and asked to look at the meter, explaining that he was investigating a leakage. He looked at the meter and she then followed him into the lounge where he inspected the switch on a table lamp and then said, "That's all, thank you." Mrs. HENDRY said she was terrified. "I walked into the hall thinking he was going to leave by the back door, and I had just crossed the hall and was about to enter the kitchen when I saw his two hands come round in front of my face. I screamed, and he then placed his hands across my mouth and nose. I could not scream, and could scarcely breathe. I struggled, and I fell on the floor with the accused on top of me. The struggled continued for a minute. Then he said to me, 'Keep quiet and I'll tell you what I want.' We were still on the floor. He said, 'It's money I want. Give me £2 for Christmas.' Accused then released his hold of me and said he would let me get up. That was after I said I would give him some money. Twice he told me that if I made a sound he would kill me. After he let me get up he ststood right beside me with his hands ready to grab me. I reached for a glass at the sink, which is near the back door. I noticed this door was open and instead of picking up the glass I ran through the door and into the yard. Accused chasesed me and I screamed. He almost reached me with his hands, but he went back into the house. I stopped half-way along the path at the side of the house when I saw the accused running away from the front door." Mrs. HENDRY then described her injuries.
Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. HENDRY said that she had picked HORRY out at an identity parade at the detectives' office.
HORRY, who pleaded not guilty and reserved his defence, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed at £100.
The trial at the Supreme Court began on 10 February 1939 before Mr. Justice CALLAN. After Mrs. HENDRY had given her evidence, Gustavus POWELL, warder at the Auckland Prison, said that the accused was released from there on the morning of 20 December 1938. Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN, the witness said he had heard that HORRY had £8 on him when he left prison. The accused had given no trouble when in prison.
When the trial resumed on 13 February Detective P. J. NALDER described the identification parade in which the accused was concerned. There were nine civilians including HORRY, all of a similar build and appearance to him. Mrs. HENDRY came in and identified HORRY. Questioned by Mr. SULLIVAN, the witness said that the men in the parade were dressed differently from the accused. They did not have blue suits and white collars as HORRY did. His Honor asked: "Did any have sports blazers?" to which the witness replied "Yes". That concluded the case for the Crown.
Mr. SULLIVAN called the accused to give evidence. HORRY outlined his past offences and said that he had never been charged with any offence involving violence. When he left prison on 20 December he had £8 9s. 8d. in his possession. He left his luggage at a house in Khyber Pass Road and caught a tram to the city. He described his movements there. He described the identification parade, explaining how and why he had protested about the age and appearance of the others taking part.
Questioned by Mr. MEREDITH, HORRY denied that he always went back to prison as soon as he came out. He admitted pleading guilty to to breaking and entering a house in April 1927, and that he had told police he had never heard of a Mrs. MITCHELSON who lived at No. 32, Armadale Road. He did not know the place he had burgled was No. 32, Armadale Road, and he did not know Mrs. MITCHELSON lived at that address.
After retiring for 35 minutes the jury brought in a guilty verdict on three counts. He was found guilty of (1) demanding money with menaces from Mrs. Eva Kathleen HENDRY; (2) assault with intent to commit a crime and (3) assault causing actual bodily harm. Mr. SULLIVAN said that the prisoner still maintained his innocence. He said that it was realised that the prisoner had been found guilty of a grave offence but a redeeming feature was that at no time had there been any suggestion of a sexual connotation. He asked his Honour to consider that when passing sentence. It was unfortunate that the prisoner had been in prison. He wished to return to his home town of Sheffield with his wife and child and to try to rehabilitate himself. The prisoner came to New Zealand when he was 15 and since then everything had gone wrong for him. Mr. SULLIVAN concluded by urging that HORRY should not be declared an habitual criminal.
In his summing up, Mr. Justice CALLAN gave a detailed resumé of HORRY's life of crime. The prisoner had in the past been found guilty of a long list of offences, including theft, false pretences and breaking and entering. There was no sexuality on the list. In 1932 he had been sentenced to 6 months hard labour, followed by three years' reformative detention. In 1935 the prisoner had passed a worthless cheque for a small sum, but had escaped to Australia. He had been found guiilty of an offence in that country and had served a prison sentence there and was deported to New Zealand at the end of his sentence. The judge continued that he had been met on arrival and arrested on the false pretences charge. At the triaial he had conducted his own defence with notable skill and was clearly a man of considerable natural intelligence. A short sentence of six months had been passed. His honour revealed that HORRY came out of prison at 9.15 on the morning of 20 December 1938 and by 10.30 the same morning had gone to a house at Remuera and assaulted the woman of the house in an attempt to obtain money. He said that the prisoner had been ably defended but he agreed absolutely and entirely with the veerdift of the jury. The assaulted woman should be commended for the way in which she gave evidence. She had convinced his Honour and the jury that she was a reliable witness. He then sentenced HORRY to three years in prison and declared him an habitual criminal. [Definition of habitual criminal: one convicted of a crime who has a certain number of prior convictions for offences of a character specified by statute (such as felonies) and is thereby under some statutes subject to an increased penalty (such as life imprisonment)]
His marriage to Evelyn Edna BATES née LOUISSON who is said to have remained in Australia would be over before the end of 1941. It is not known when or where their daughter was killed.
DECREE NISI ON 28 MAY 1940
Evelyn Edna COLLVER (formerly BATES) versus George Horace COLLVER. Marriage October 1935 at Auckland, New Zealand, by Registrar. Issue: desertion. Decree nisi. Mr. F. C. HIDDEN (instructed by Mr. Maxwell F. CONNERY) for the petitioner before Mr. Justice BOYCE. The decree was made absolute in January 1941.
[The divorce papers are on open access, Item Number 1397/1939, Western Sydney Records Centre, Kingswood, NSW, Australia.]
TWO MARRIAGES IN 1942
The name of HORRY, George Cecil, tailor, of 135 Landscape Rd., Mount Eden, Auckland, appeared in a 'Notice as to Men called up under the National Service Emergency Regulations 1940 for Service with Territorial Force' published in the New Zealand Gazette on 25 March 1942).
(Ancestry: NZ War Ballot List)
At HORRY's trial for murder in 1951, Robert HITCHENS, ledger keeper of the Remuera branch of an Auckland bank, said that on 15 April 1942 HORRY tried to open a joint account with a Miss GEALE. When told that she would have to visit the bank, HORRY opened an account in his own name and later deposited £300. He closed the account on 22 December 1942.
Using the name George Arthur TURNER, George Cecil HORRY married Mary Eileen JONES née SPARGO at Pitt Street Methodist Chapel on 11 July 1942. She was a divorcée from Herne Bay, used the name Eileen rather than Mary, and worked as a factory fororelady. HORRY proposed to her after a whirlwind romance. Love-struck, she accepted him straight away, believing his story that he was the son of an aristocratic British cutlery millionaire and was soon to inherit a title and a fortune. She had no idea that he was out of prison on licence, worked as a tailor's presser, and knew nothing of his recent engagment to a woman called Eunice GEALE. HORRY, however, knew that she owned her own home in Ponsonby, received as part of a 1939 divorce settlement.
At the later murder trial, Judge I. J. GOLDSTINE, formerly a practising solicitor, said that he supervised the documents for the sale of the house belonging to Mrs. JONES before her marriage to TURNER. At midnight on the night of 11 July 1942 he received a telephone call from Helensville, and Mrs. TURNER asked him to make the cheque for the sale of the house open. He declined, saying that trust account cheques were always non-negotiable. Called to the telephone, her husband repeated the request, saying that they had to get away very quickly. Judge GOLDSTINE told them to pay the cheque into the bank and get it cashed.
Eileen Mary SPARGO or HORRY was last seen on 12 July 1942. The last her parents saw of her was after the reception when she left to spend her wedding night at the Helensville Hotel. Much later, Eileen's mother Harriet recalleded HORRY's behavior at the wedding. "I shook hands with him and he put his arms around me and kissed me, saying "Thank God, I've got a mother at last." The following day the pair visited Celia SHEPHERD, a friend of the bride at Titirangi. Instead of the trip to Australia then England which HORRY had talked about, the couple headed for New Zealand's lonely Waitakere mountains. The bride was never seen again.
'George Arthur TURNER' disappeared after returning a rental car on 13 July 1942.
At the later trial, Archibald Victor THOMAS testified that on 14 July 1942, just three days after the wedding, HORRY opened an account with the Auckland branch of the Union Bank of Australia using the name Charles ANDERSON and deposited £80. THOMAS refused to accept for deposit a non-negotiable trust account cheque for £687 made out on GOLDSTINE & O'DONNELL, solicitors, but he accepted the cheque after contacting the solicitors. He said that the contents of the account were cleared out a few days later.
For a time Eileen HORRY's parents received letters bearing Australian postmarks and signed "George and Eileen". What HORRY did not know was that they knew he had never left Auckland. One of the letters which he had arranged to have posted back from Australia was opened by a New Zealand censor of outgoing mail and accidently gave police a vital clue.
On 12 December 1942 Charles Cecil HORRY married Eunice Marcel GEALE. The public wedding took place in the radio theatre 1ZB Auckland, where the popular religious programme the 'Friendly Road' was conducted. The officiating minister was the hososost of the program, Thomas GARLAND, known as 'Uncle Tom'. A week later he went to the home of his former wife's parents to tell them that their daughter had been lost at sea when Empress of India was sunk by a torpedo in the Atlantic on its way to England. William SPARGO, Eileen's father, had in the meantime become increasingly suspicious and, on 6 December 1942, had reported her disappearance to the police.
1943
In June 1943 the police obtained a search warrant and found some of Eileen's clothing in HORRY's house, her hatbox and a suitcase containing her wedding dress. He then admitted that he had married her as TURNER and gave another unlikely explanation for her disappearance, contradicting the one given to her parents six months earlier. Asked why he was now telling a different story HORRY replied: "I can see now it is getting complicated".
On 25 June 1943, Detective Arthur HARRIS and Detective-Sergeant KEARNEY interviewed HORRY at his home in Auckland where he lived with his present wife. HORRY identified a photograph of Mary Eileen TURNER as the woman Eileen JONES whom he had mmarried in July 1942. When asked if he did anything to this woman he replied "Certainly not." Asked where she was, HORRY said "I do not know. I wish I did." Notes made by KEARNEY at this interview show that HORRY was alleged to have said that the woman he married on 11 July 1942 left him in the street the day after the wedding and he thought she was going to meet another man. HORRY is also alleged to have said that he married the woman "for this other man who she told me was married and had a child, and she wanted to be married before she went away. I think she was going overseas." When asked what he got out of it, HORRY is alleged to have said: "I got 650". At this same interview HORRY is alleged to have admitted that he told the SPARGO family that their daughter was drowned at sea, but said he did so becaused he received a letter from Hamilton in which Eileen "instructed me to do it."
AQUITTED OF A CHARGE OF INDECENT EXPOSURE IN 1944
On 25 July 1944 George Cecil HORRY, a 37 year old tailor, appeared in the Police Court charged with committing an indecent act on 17 July in the New Zealand Insurance Company's building, thereby intending to insult or offend a young woman. Horry pleaded not guilty and committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed.
On 2 and 3 November 1944, described as a tailor but dressed in an army private's uniform, HORRY appeared before Mr. Justice FAIR on the charge of committing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. MEREDIITH, said the offence was alleged to have been committed in a city building where a commercial college was housed. Evidence was given by two girls and a number of others. Evidence was given that the accused exposed himself indecently to girls from the college one day at lunch time and that he was seen in the same part of the building on other days in circumstances suggesting that he was loitering at a time when the college girls were out and about during their break for lunch. After a retirement lasting two and a half hours the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.
DAYLIGHT ROBBERY IN 1945
The Press reported in its edition dated 13 April 1945 that George Cecil HORRY, a 38 year old airman, had been charged with breaking and entering by day the house of John Grant STEPHENS at No. 31, Riccarton Road on 2 April and committing theft. He was remanded until 17 April. On 27 April he was further remanded until 7 May. Bail at £100 with one surety of £100. On 8 May 1945 he was committed to the Supreme Court on charges of breaking and entering by day the house of John Grant STEPHENS and committing theft therein; forging an Air Force allotment cheque for £8 8s. by endorsing it with a false signature; and causing it to be acted on as if it were genuine. HORRY also pleaded not guilty to a summary charge of assumiing the name of George SAUNDERS, not being a name by which he was known at the coming into force of the Emergency War Regulations. He asked for a remand on this charge to enable him to bring witnesses from Timaru. This charge was adjourned sine die.
On the 18 May 1945 he appeared before his Honour Mr. Justice NORTHCROFT in the Suptreme Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. He conducted his own defence and cross-examined at length nearly all the witnesses. Prosecuting on behalf of the Crown, Mr. A. W. BROWN said the alleged offences occurred on East Monday, 2 April. A house at Riccarton had been broken into and an allotment cheque, a gold cross, a hot water bottle, a bottle of brandy and other articles haad been stolen. The cheque was cashed at a city hotel and endorsed E. M. ALEXANDER. There were no wtinesses to the actual offences but circumstantial evidence was very strong: on the night of 2 April the accused went to the cinema and later sat in a car. He had with him a green hot water bottle. A gold cross that had been taken from the house at Riccarton had later been given by the accused to a lady friend. At 7 a.m. on 3 April the accused was on a bus to Methven. When iinterviewed by the police he claimed it was a case of mistaken identity. The accused was in Timaru on 1 April but did not stay in his room at the boarding house that night and his bed had not been slept in. A train left Timaru for Christchurch very early in the morning.
In his summing up, Mr. Justice NORTHCROFT said the trial had been protracted because the accused person had elected to defend himself. It was unusual because counsel was assigned when an accused was unable to defend himself. The prisoner knew of his rights, and a good deal of latitude had been allowed. A series of articles had been stolen and some of them had been recovered. There was no direct evidence that the accused had forged a signature, but the cheque was signed whilst iit was in his presence and if did not actually do the writing he was a party to it and so would be guilty. The accused had tried to provide an alibi by claiming that he was in Timaru at the time the theft was committed, and later said he was aat the races at Riccarton. The evidence suggested that he had left Timaru in the early hours of 2 April and had left for Methven on 3 April. The judged finished by saying that there was a very strong body of evidence to discount the plea of an alibi. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. His Honour then revealed that the prisoner was an old offender and had 47 convictions against him for dishonesty. He had served three years in prison and had been declared an habitual criminal.
There followed a long plea for mercy from George Cecil HORRY. He recounted his experiences when he was sent at the age of 16 to Borstal for three years, the first two or three months being "pure hell", but after that a prisoner got into a groove and when he came out he felt it was not so bad. If a person were sentenced to three months at first he had the opportunity to reform. Here his Honour interjected: "I am not dealing with a first offender, but with a fiftieth offender". HORRY said that since then he had had little freedom between sentences. He had been released on licence in 1942 after being declared an habitual criminal. He was still out on licence, and had not renewed an application for its lifting after ttwo years because it kept him on the right path. If a sentence of six months were now imposed he might be incarcerated for two or four years. He appealed for a suspended sentence, claiming to be the black sheep of a respectable family and to have been punished enough. He said that he was at an age where he could think for himself and also had responsibilities at home.
Mr. Justice NORTHCROFT retorted that HORRY's record showed that in the last 20 years he had been convicted for 47 crimes of dishonesty, the majority being false pretences. That alone, he said, made him sceptical about relying on anything coming from HORRY who had deliberately offended in the full knowledge of the consequences. However, he was prepared to treat this latest offence as a separate incident detached from his previous record.. On the charge of breaking and entering the sentence to be imposed was 12 months imprisonment with hard labour. The sentence on each other charges was six months, all to run concurrently. When HORRY asked for his licence to be cancelled his Honour said that was outside his remit: it would be impertinent for him to make any representation to the Prisons Board.
1946-1950
For the next five years HORRY was rarely out of custody.
Teams of Auckland police embarked on a series of arduous searches around the swampy and heavily forested South Head of Kaipara Harbour. When told years after his conviction that police had combed the area, HORRY reportedly made a cryptic remark: "Wrong head."
From the 1946 and 1949 Electoral Roll of Waitakere, Auckland, New Zealand:
HORRY, Eunice Marcel, 1237 New North Rd, married
HORRY, George Cecil, 1237 New North Road, tailor
From the 1949 Electoral Roll of Mount Albert, Auckland SW1, New Zealand:
HORRY Eunice Marcel, 20 Aroha Ave, married
HORRY George Cecil, 20 Aroha Ave, married
1951
In April 1951 the decision was taken in Auckland's Crown Solicitor's office to charge HORRY with the murder of his wife in 1942. It was now or never. Nine years had passed since her disappearance and she was now legally dead. Witnesses werere aging and in one case in declining heath. On 14 June 1951 detectives drove to HORRY's home in Mount Albert to arrest him, little realising that what they were about to hear was the breakthrough they had sought for years. As the detectives prepared to charge him, Horry said to his wife Eunice: "It's that TURNER business." Eunice replied, "Why, has she turned up?" HORRY replied: "That's impossible - she couldn't have. Say nothing. Tell them nothing."
The trial began in Auckland's Supreme Court on 6 August 1951 before Mr. Justice Francis ADAMS. The jury refused to believe the defence's explanation and, after less than two hours, found HORRY guilty of murder.
1967
HORRY was released from prison in 1967 and immediately changed his name by deed poll, as indeed did his wife Eunice.
1981
George Cecil HORRY, criminal, confidence trickster, tailor, convicted murderer, died on 29 April 1981 after being sentenced to life for murder. The registration of his death aged 73 records his date of birth as 6 May 1907. His wife Eunice pre-deceased him. The registration of her death records exactly the same age (73 years) and date of birth (6 May 1907) as her husband.
(NZ BMDs online 1981/34902 and 1980/50524)
"He [George Cecil HORRY alias TAYLOR] died at Auckland on 29 April 1981, survived by his wife Eunice; their only child, a daughter, had been killed in a car accident some years earlier."
(Dictionary of New Zealand Biography)
If George Cecil HORRY falsified his wife's death certificate in 1980 what was his motive? Was he planning to kill her? He would have a perfect defence because she was already "dead" and would not be missed.
Eunice Marcel GEALE/HORRY/TAYLOR did not die until 13 January 2017 aged 101.
(email from her great niece Karen LASH, 31 January 2017)
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Was HORRYdeeply affected by the death of his child? Nothing appears to have been written about her. What was her name?
Was HORRY in conflict with his own mother, or was what he said to his wife's mother at the wedding just the talk of a 'ladies' man'?
If a ladies' man, how could he spend so much of his life in prison almost without contact with the opposite sex?
One violent incident in a criminal career spanning twenty years during which he didn't actually hit anyone. Was he really the man he was made out to be?
Is it not reasonable to suggest that plotting to murder someone in cold blood was completely out of character?
Could the death of Eileen have been the result of some terrible accident which caused HORRY to panic in the knowledge that he had never been believed and wouldn't be believed now?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I am grateful to a member of the Horry family for bringing to my notice 60 references to George Cecil Horry on the New Zealand National Library's Papers Past website.
(www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/a-z/paperspast)
In writing this potted biography I have studied and made extensive use of all these articles which appeared in the Press; Auckland Star; Northern Advocate; Evening Post; New Zealand Herald; Time; NZ Truth between 1923 and 1945, as well as further articles filed under his assumed names; a long article "Ain't got no body" in the New Zealand Listener; Brian W. STEPHENSON's article "HORRY, George Cecil" from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography; and Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand updated on 22 October 2013.
To be researched: Melbourne Age 10 July 1951 for evidence from May Gutry, the murdered wife's sister, as well as evidence from Mrs. SPARGO.
NOTES & QUERIES:
A photograph of George Cecil HORRY appears in the New Zealand Police Gazette. See Photographs 1923 page 90. There was also a physical description of him in 1923.
(revised 27.03.2019)