LINDBERGH’S SON

Hokitika Guardian, 10 March 1932, Page 5

LINDBERGH’S SON

VARYING CLUES NO FURTHER PROGRESS MADE. United Press Association—By Electrn Telegraph.—Copyright > NEW YORK, March 8. This is the eighth day after the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and no more definite progress towards the lv’overy of the child seems to have been made, • than oil the first. There is .reported an altercation between Lindbergh and the police concerning the surveillance by the latter over .'telephone messages received at the Lindbergh home. The tendency seems to be that the .Lindberghs seek a freer hand for their own effort s for the recovery of their son. ■

The statement of Earl Edwards, aged 40, to a fellow train passenger, that his father-in-law, who lie said was an amateur fortune teller, had divulged important clues in the .Lindbergh cafce, resulted in Edwards and his newly-made friend, Samuel Black, aged 'sl, of Lawrence, Massachusetts, being taken to police headquarters for questioning. L

Black quoted Edwards as saying that lie should transmit the information to Lindbergh, if he 'had sufficient finals, Black agreed to flmtilce a telephone call, and Black ..said that Edward.?! was in the booth, putting the call through, when the arrests were made,

Edwards told the police that his father-in-law, Charles Boulanger, told him ,-that the boy was being held by an aged couple, and that the motive for the crime was revenge, and not' ransom. The s Haverhill police have been asked to check the story, with Boulanger. POLICE GIVE FLAT DENTAL. TO RUMOUR OF RESTORATION. '’Received this day at 9.25 a.m) BOSTON, March 9. The mayor,' iMr James Curley, to-day said that lie was reliably informed that the Lindbergh baby had been returned to its parents on Sunday night, and the information withheld from the police. The Mayor, answering queries arising as a result of persistent rumours, said that 'his informant was a New York broker, whom he declined to. name.

The broker, he said, was informed by an insurance man, whose name he also withheld. Mr Curley .said' that he was informed that the baby had been reItiiTned to its home after, t her-parents had made an agreement with the kidnappers not to notify the police, for seventy-two hours A New Jersey message states that a member of the Morrow household, who said that she was authorised to speak for Mrs Dwight Morrow, denied the report that the baby had been returned. The police at the Lindbergh home at Hopewell, stated flatly to-day .. that the baby was not in either the Lindbergh nor the Morrow homes, and said that they knew nothing of the report.