A REMARKABLE CASE.

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 195, 13 May 1919, Page 6

A REMARKABLE CASE.

BUSINESS MAN ARRAIGNED ' ON CHARGE OF BEING ROGUE AND VAGABOND BOUND OVER TO KEEP THE PEACE A charge of being a rogue and a vagabond, in that he was found by night without lawful excuse on . tho premises of William Strongman, No. 11 Fallowfield Avenue, was preferred against Howard Nattrass before Mr. F. ?. Frailer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Acttng-Su'b-Inspector Emerson prosecuted and Mr. M. Myers appeared on behalf of the defendant and entered a plea-of not guilty. Acting-Sub-inspeotor Emerson stated that at 10 o'clock on Friday night tho defendant was found on the premises of Mr. Strangman. There had been some trouble between defendant and complainant for some months past. Mr. Myers stated that as there was a Supreme Court action pending against his client, wherein Strangman was suing Nattrass for £1900 for seduction, the evidence should be confined to the point as to whether the defendant was or was not on the premises. , Continuing, 'Sub-Inspector. Emerson said that it-would be necessary to call evidence to show defendant's object in going to the house. It was not suggested that ho went there to burglarise the house, but it was suggested that he went there to seo Mr. Strongman's daughter and get her away. His Worship said that in order to judge the case it would be necessary to near some reference as to the general facts of tho case.

William Strongman, traveller, stated that he resided with his wife and two daughters at No. 11 Fallowfield Avenue. At about 10 o'clock on Friday night four men camo to his house and said that they represented the Society for tho Protection of Women and Children, and accused witness of having ill-treated one of his daughters. Witness ordered them off the premises and told his eldest daughter to go for tho police. He then heard a noise in the vicinity of tho bedroom occupied by his daughter Edith, and hoard someone say, "Get her out now—get her out quick." He then saw two men running from tho side of his house,' and ono ho recognised 'as tho defendant Nattrass. Witness had no doubt as to the object of tho visit. They wero there to got his {laughter away. To Mr. Myers: Witness recognised the defendant when he was twenty feet away. Ho had no doubt that it was the defendant ho saw. ■ He had fairly good eyesight, although, ho occasionally woro glasses. He had never seen the defendant about the house at night-time previously. Witness admitted that ho kept a watch on his daughter's movements and that the window of her room was somewhat barred—barred to the extent that it would not open freely. To Acting - Sub - Inspector Emereon: Witness had allowed, his daughter Editli ouit on a previous occasion and she had failed' tq return. Sho was away for four weeks. James Vincent Fahey, clerk, said that he was standing in Courtenay Place at about 10 o'clock on Friday night when he saw defendant drive 'past in his motor-car in the direction of Mount Victoria. Ho later went to tho house of Mr. Strangman in Fallowfield Avenue and saw there. Harry Nattrass and Aubrey Gualter and two other men whom ho did not know. One of the men said they had called on behalf of tho Society for tho Protection of Women and Children. Witness next heard a noise round the side of tho house near the window of Mr. Strongman's daughter's ronm. He went round .and saw the defendant and another man endeavouring to get over a fence. Witness hit Nattrass with a slide and also delivered a few blows to the othor man. He had no doubt that it was Nattrass—he had seen him often. To Mr. Myers: Witness knew that Mr. Gualter was a well-known business man about town, and ho was almost certain that it was Mr. Gualter whom he had seen at Mr. Strongman's house. Ho had spoken to him shortly after they arrived.

His Worship: What did Gualter say to you when he came up? Witness: He rondo some remarks about Strangman's daughter. Emma Amelia. Strap.gman said th.at she was sitting with her daughter Edith in her daughter's room on Friday night, when she heard someone at tho window. She heard/a voice, which she recognised as that of the defendant, saying, "Edio, Edie." She had known tho defendant for over three years. Two nights previous to the Friday she saw Nattrass and another man in tho avenue. When her daughter heard the voice sho got up and put on her coat. To Mr. Myers: Her daughter did not say anything when she heard tho voice calling "Edie." This concluded the evidence for ,the prosecution. Mr. Myers said that he proposed to call evidence which would be a denial of tho allegations made by tho prosecution as to the presence of tho defendant at Mr. Strangman's house on tho Friday night. Ho pointed out that the witness Strangman had said', thr.t he <=aw defendant when ho was tweiity feet away; Fahey had stated that he sw a man a little distance away from the window, who might or might not have been on Strangman's properly, and Mrs. Strangman said that she had not seen the defendant on the night in question. Mr. and Mrs. Strangman might, have had reason to believe that it was the defendant who was there, but the evidence ho would call would show that ho was not there. He would also call Mr. Gualter, who would stato that he was not anywhere near Fallowtield Avenue. Einar Haar, hall porter, employed at the Midland Hotel, said, that ho saw tho defendant Nattrass enter the hotel at about twenty minutes to 10 o'clock on Friday night. . The defendant went to the office and then asked witness to bring some refreshments to his room, together with the evening paper. Witness procured the refreshments and took them up to defendant's room. Defendant was then partly undressed. Witness left and came down by the lift and did not. see defendant again. Witness was cross-examined at some length by Acting-Sub-Inspector Emerson as to tho time it would take a. man to get dressed and, if in a hurry, how long it would take him to get to Courtenay Place. Witness stated that ho did un't see Mr. Nattrass leave the hotel. Ho would have seen him had ho come out that night. Re-examined by Mr. Myers: Witness did not sro anything further of Nattrass that night. He did not see a motor-car outside. Aubrey Gualter, of Gualter and Co., said that he had been in business for 11 years on his own account, aud he had recently been appointed secretary to the Nattrass, Harns Motor Company. He denied that he was in Fallowfield Avenue on Friday night or in the vicinity of the .thoroughfare. He visited n friend's place at Hataitai between S p.m. aud 10.45 iun. on Friday. Ho did not know Fahey/and he did not see him on Friday night. To Acting-Sub-Inspector Emerson: Witness admitted that ho had refused to give any statement to the police on being questioned. He knew Mr. Strangman's Bouse. His Worship remarked that a good dca! of trouble might have been, saved had witness made a statement to the police. Ho considered that Gualter had acted foolishly. , Acting-Sub-Inspi;ctor Emerson: Did you have a conversation with anyone outside the Court? Witness: Yes. Did you not say, "You swear by the Almighty God to say that Nattrass was there between "0 minutes and a miiirter to ten?" , •■- Witness: I was talking to a young lady who was rather nervous, and explaining to her the procedure to be followed oil going into the witncs.s-box. "But what about the 20 minutes and 15 minutes to ten?" Witness: Tho girl mentioned that she knew the timo that Nattrass arrived and that sho was going off duty at. a quarter to ten. <Va M>- Mj««.t WitjlflSS said Uj»t tha

ntliludo of (lie nolice when they called on him was aggressive. His Worship: Why did you not'givc an answer? Witness: There appeared to be some conspiracy and I was "rattled." The policeman made some remark about the Magistrate taking action. Counsel interjected, ind said that he had heard the- policeman make some remark about the Mnzistrale taking proceedings. His Worship then explained that he had been asked to issue a warrant, but he was doubtful as to whether ho should issue a warrant or a summons, and he had issued a warning to the sergeant of the police respecting further probable action should defendant again visit the house.

"Howard Nattrass, the defendant, then gave evidence, and admitted that he was the defendant in some litigation about to be heard in the Supreme Court. He denied having been present at Mr. Strongman's house on Friday night, nor was he present on (ho property two nights previously. It was two months ago since ho was last, near the I'ouse, and then he had attended to fix up some business with Miss Edith Strongman in connection with the company's affairs. He was in the Midland Hotel at 10 o'clock on Friday night, and he did not leave there till the following morning. Ho arrived at Ihe hotel at about 20 minutes to ten. Witness proceeded to corroborate the evidence given by the hall porter. He had a telephone message at 10.30 p.m. He was not in his car on Friday night, nor fiid Faliey hit him with a slick. George Barnes, liftman of the Midland Hotel, said he was on duty at the Midland Hotel from 5 o'clock to 10 o'clock on Friday night. He saw defendant enter tho hotel on the Friday night at about twenty minutes to 10 o'clock, and took hiru tip to his room. Before going up in tho lift defendant went to the office, where he had a conversation with the clerk there. Ho did not see Mr. Nattrass again after taking him np to his room. To Acting-Sub-Inspector Emerson: He never saw the defendant come out of the hotel after ho had .taken hirii up. Witness left tho hotel at 10 p.m. The defendant on Saturday morning asked .witness to give evidence. Robert M'Robie, night porter at the Midland Hotel, said that some time about 10.30 p.m. on Friday a telephone, message came through for Nattrass. Witness put the connection through to defendant". l ! room, and defendant answered the call. Witness did not see defendant till tho next' morning, just before he went off. Eileen Pender, clerk at tho Midland Hotel, said that the defendant came into the office* at about 9.45 on Friday .night, and asked whether a friend had arrived from tho country. They had a little further conversation, and then defendant spoke to the'hall porter and afterwards went upstairs. To Sub-Inspector Emerson witness said that Mr. Gualter had told her abont tho procedure which would be followed in the Court. He told hor that she would have to speak the truth, but ho did not tell her what she should say. She did not see defendant again that night. Joseph Dwyev, licensee of the Midland Hotel," said that it was not possible for a guest to get out of the hotel at 10 o'clock at nirdit except through tho front door. The hack entrance. to tho hotel was closed shortly after 8 n.ra., and the keys were placed in the office To Acting-SnMnspectOr Emerson: The firo escapes at the bock of the hotel all led to the backyard, and had defendant used tire' firo escape lib could not havo got out, as tho gates were..'securely locked and it would he necessary to get tho keys from the office.

This concluded tho evidence for the defence, and llv. Myers proceeded to refer to the section of tho Act under which defendant was charged and its relation to tho particular offence. Ho reviewed the evidence at some length, and suggested that both Mr. Strongman and Mr. Fahey were mistaken when they thought they saw the defendant. His Worship stated that the section really covered the type of offence where a man had vntercd private premises to 6leep off Hie effects of drink, nevertheless in this case there had been a trespass committed. The suggestion in this case was something in the naturo of abduction or a similar' intention. This was no doubt the. intention of the /persons who were there. After reviewing the evidence and commenting on a previous disappearance of tho girl and the relations between Jhe defendant and the parents, llii Worship was convinced that defendant was present. "Who olso would it be?" continued His Worship. "There is no evidence of anyone eke getting the girl away—no one else hod shown any interest in getting tho girl away," His Worship believed Fahey to be a perfectly honest witness, and "Gualter could take what ho liked out of it." The real defonce was an alibi, but Gualter had not given the police any opportunity of proving his statement. He must tako into cousideratidn tho evidence of both. Strongman and Fahey, and particularly tho action of the girl Edith when she heard the voice outside tho window. Mrs. Strongman recognised the voice as that of tho defendant, and the girl apparently knew who it was when sue jumped up and put on her euat. Defendant's intention was to lake the girl away, but it was not' a case of abduction. He did not think the action of the defendant was done in good faith. A man in his position should adopt proper proceedings. The proper course would have been for him to apply In the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Certainly no man had the right to go to the house and beset it to get the girl away. It was not a case for imprisonment, but he would deal with (lie matter under the Justices of tho Peace Act, and i rder defendant to bo bound over the peace for 12 months in the sum of £2Hd, and one surety of .C-'OO. Defendant was nlfo ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. \