ALLEGED ATTEMPTED EXTORTION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1956, 28 September 1888, Page 3

ALLEGED ATTEMPTED EXTORTION

At the R.M. Court this morning, before Major Steward, J.P , and Mr D. Thomas J P., Kobert Wooda was charged with having attempted to extort money and valuables from Mary Lambie by means of a letter of menace m June last.

The accused etands committed on a similar charge, the present information being based on a letter written, prior to tbe one, on account of which accused was, bt a recent sitting of the Court, cemmitte ; to take his trial.

Sergt Felton conducted tho prosecution. Accused waa not represented by counsel. The following evidence was called : —

John Lanibie, farmer at Eyle, said that he had a daughter named Mary, who is married to Wm. Lockhoad. In June of the present year she waa single. There w»b a postoffice at Kyle. The envelope produced was received m due course through the pout, about June 26th. The letter was addressed to his daughter to whom ;t washandei. She subsequently showed witnees the letter. (Letter read It waa one from accused, who demanded three rings and £1. He made certain charges against the girl, and threatened to expose her to Lockhead.) Witness knew accused, who was m his employ for about five months m 1883. Accused had been living m the district ever since then. Accused had written about five or six letters to witness' daughter. Somo were written prior to that produced and one since. The one written since was still m existence, the oth'.rs, witness ! thought, had been des'royed Tho first j few letters were of a friendly tone, but those of a subsequent date were of similar purport to the one m tie hands of the police. The friendly letters were returned, but tho-e of a threatening nature were retained. Witness remembered a pound note and three rings coming to hia daughter, by a man named Fowler, who was then the mail carrier from Ash burton to £yle. The rings came m a little parcel and the note m a letter. The rings and note were sent back fo accused at Chertsey, on the next day, being taken by a man named Robert Quaife, who was to leave th9in at the Ofaertsey post (ffice. Mary Lockhead, wife of Win. Lockhead, a farn er nt Doric, and daughter of John Lambie, remembered receiving the letter produced m June last from the accueed. Witnejß received three rings from Fowler, who said that Wood had sent them, and £1 m a letter through the post. The note c^me before the rings, but witness did not remember how long before. The rings and note were sent back to accused, m the box the rings came m. They were taken back by a man named Quaife, who was to post them at Chertsey. On August 31st accused handed her a letter of similar purport. She was alone that day. Accused came to the door and knocked. On witness responding to the knock she saw accused standing at the door with a large stick m his hand. He asked witness if she knew what he came for. She replied that she did not. He then said that he wanted the presents he Bent witness five years ago. Witness replied that she had not got them, and had sent them back to him. He said that she had not registered them, and that his word was as good as I hers. He was very excited and abusive, and frightened witness very much. Before leaving h* asked witness l( to shake hands and ba friends," but she declined. He then tried to kiss her. Witness struggled for iwo or three minutes, and j had to seize him by the whiskers before he let her go; When he was going away he caught hold of her by the hand. Witness had no property whatever boi longing to him m her possession. Constable Casey said that he had tho accused fn custody on September 3rd. He said to witness that after he left Limbie's he wrote to Miss Lambie three lei ten, and as Mr Lambie kept the post at that time he (accused) went into Ashburton and made it right with the postboy to deliver the letters to her. Accused further said that m answer to those three letters he received one, telling him to discontinue wrlllngi This letter waa dated May 6th, 1884 Accused aatd that he wanted his rings back. Miss Limbfe said that the had sent them back by post, but he (acouaed) never received them, and she never wrote to say that she had sent them. Acoused s»id that about four years ago, when he was working for Lambie, he gave Miss Lambie, as sbo was then, the rlngp, when she promised to be hia wife, but now she had married another man he had a right to aak for his own.

John Lamble, re-called, said that the rings and £1 were received by bis daughter about Maroh, 1884 The note came first, end the rings a day or two afterwords. They were sent back the day after the receipt of the linga. No writing was sent with the rings, bat a letter accompanied the £1 note, m whioh letter accused asked witness's daughter to get her likeness taken and send one to him. No letter vyas sont with the paroel containing the rings when it was sent to accused Witness's daughter was now 22 years of age, and would be 17 at the time accused was working f:>r witness.

The accused was commuted for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Oonrt at Chrlstohurch, ball being allowed nccneed In £100 and two sureties of £100 each.