BLACKMAIL CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 96, 17 January 1935, Page 10

BLACKMAIL CHARGE

Man’s Letters to Woman in England ACCUSED TO STAND TRIAL Charged with demanding £lOO from a woman in England with menaces with intent to steal it, Hubert Reginald Heath appeared in the Magistrate’s Court at Wellington yesterday, pleaded not guilty and was committed by Messrs. D. H. Edgar and H. D. Grocott, justices of the peace, to the Supreme Court for trial. Accused was allowed to remain on bail. It was alleged that accused wrote threatening letters to Miss Marion Dailey, formerly of New Zealand, but now living in England, who is now Mrs. Hart. Constable D J Cleverley said twa he interviewed Heath in May, IJ3» and showed him a letter to the police from Mrs. Hart, winch Heath reeog nisei] as being in her handwriting Woman’s Letter to Police. The letter from Mrs. Hart, written from an address in Hampstead, London. and dated March 23. 1933. was as follows:—"Dear Sir.—l enclose a letter which I have received from a man named Hubert Reginald Hearn I lived in New Zeamnd with him six years ago He nas never supported myself or child and has lied to me from the first. In December he caused me much annoyance and threatened o do me in. also the child. 1 had to seek protection from the police. 1 have been to New Zealand House and was advised by Mr. Skinner to tell you Heath is wanted in Christchurch for the maintenance of his wife and children. “I supplied him with his passage out to New Zealand to get rid of him I have not promised him any money I repeatedly helped him before he left. He was in many minor difficulties, i am to be married in March and shall live in Hampstead. He threatened to kidnap my child and also spread many reports about me. I have worked hard as a nurse for years, and he is trying to ruin tnv life completely. I believe there is a money charge also against him in Christchurch. If you can help me in anv way I be glad.—Yours truly. Marion Dailey. Letters From “Hugh.” The letter which Miss Dally enclosed was headed 33 Woburn Road, Northland, N.Z., and dated February 20, 1933. It was as follows:—"My dear,— I have arrived in New Zealand and wish to God I bad never left you. 1 will come back some day. You have nor sent the money as promised. 1 will give you a few more days, and 1 hope for your sake you have kept your promise. Do not think that you can escape. My dear, you can and you will suffer as I have done. You have killed me, but I still love you.—Hugh.” The constable said that accused stated he had yyritteu a letter to that effect to Miss Dally. Witness warned accused to cease writing such letteis, and accused replied that it was unnecessary because he had finished with liei. Witness interviewed accused on October 31 concerning further correspondence from him. Heath said that aftei he spent all his money on Miss Dally she considered that, if she could get rid of accused, she could marry Hart. She had said that if he returned to New Zealand she would send £5O, which would be waiting for him to draw when he arrived. That was why he had written the letters. She had not kep her promise. Witness told him he would get himself into serious trouble if he did not cease writing such letters. “You Ruined My Life.” The following letter, also alleged to have been written by accused, was read: “My Dear Marion, —So you have broken your promise again by not sending the money you promised. This is to let you know I am finished as regards to my wife. She is divorcing me very soon, so I will be free and I am returning to England. You think that though I am away from England you are free. You will never be that, my dear. I shall always be in the background and shall pop up like a bad penny. . . . Nobody has ever played the dirtv on me and got away with it. I pay back with 100 per cent, interest. “I will give you to May 12 to keep your promise, then 1 will send the photographs and history to everybody and Miss . I will never love another woman and I love you enough to hurt von all I can. ... I will always be your shadow till death. You forget I love my daughter and will do what yon least expect. I will not give you a second warning. . . . You ruined my life and now you think that all is pa.->t and done. It is not so. 1 am going to make more money to taunt yon ami have my revenge.—Your boy. and always will be, your boy. Hugh." Mr. R. 11. Boys, who appeared for accused, objected to the reading of the letters. Evidence of Detective. Detective-Sergeant T. Y. Hall said that on September 10 he showed accused one of the letters to Mrs Hart. Accused said he had written the letter to Mrs. Hart to induce her to send the £lOO she had promised He showed accused a letter addressed to Mrs Hart signed “A Friend,” which accused admitted writing. Another lone' wi’ness produced was typewritten and came from “A Friend ” Accused “aid ttie letter had been sent at h!» nictation It was on similar paper to 'be others At witness’s suggestion accused made a statement. The statement said that Heath had been a storekeeper, living with his wife at Hamner Springs. He left his wife and went to-Enaland with Miss Dailey. They lived ns husband and wife, and two children were born Understanding that there would be money awaiting him in New Zealand, lie left for this country, arriving early in 1933. He wrote the letters to induce her to send the £lOO promised Statement At Scotland Yard On January 7. 1935. witnes- showed accused a statement mad'' by Mrs Hart at New Scotland Yard. London, which accused read. He said sue was a liar, so far as part of the statement was concerned. Accused did not deny that he bad received £230 f"om her as she alleged, but said that it nad been used to buy a house in her mime. The statement, which witness read, complained that Heath was attempting t o blackmail her. It detailed their meeting in New Zeaitind and departure for England. She found him a greedy man. On the boat he pressor’ her for money, and she gave him £2O and another £2O after they had arrived in England Later she realised she had made a mistake, and took a position. A plea by Mr. Boys that the state ment made at New Scotland Yard be not admitted was not accepted by the bench, which ruled that there was a case to answer.