BOUND OVER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10278, 13 May 1919, Page 6

BOUND OVER

A STRANGE CASE

YAG-RANGY CHARGE AGAINST CITY BUSINESS MAN.

SEVERE COMMENTS BY MAGISTRATE.

The term “rogue and 'vagabond" has a very wide range, and, in certain circumstances, applies to a millionaire, as far as the police use of it is concerned, equally with the poorest member of society. This was exemplified yesterday, when Howard Nattrass. a city business man, who resides at the Midland Hold, was charged in the Magistrate a Court with being a rogue and vagain that he was found by night on the premises of William Strongman,' .11, U'alJowfiold avenue. 'Mr _ Frazer, H.M., was on the bench. Acting-Sub-Inspector Emerson prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Mr M. Myers represented the accused. Inspector Emerson said that about 10 o’clock on Friday night. May 9th, the' defendant was found on Mr Strongman's premises. For some montns past there had been trouble between the accused and the Strongman family. Mr Myers said it might help matters if he stated that a prosecution, claiming £3do9 lor seduction, was pending against the defendant. Counsel- did. not think that mere should bo discussion in the present case thamnight prujuaico the other prosecution, evidence would be brought tor the defence tc show tnat Nattrass was not on Strangman's premises on Friday night. The magistrate said that ho did not desire to prejudice me case which was pending in tne {supremo Court, bot it might be necessary lor the prosecution to mention some of the lacts in order that the present court might understand the position. Inspector Emerson said it was necessary to give evidence in order to -show Wattrasa’s object in going to the house in question. The suggested object was to communicate with -Hiss strangman, or get her away from her fathers house. , FOUR MEN IN THE GARDEN.

William Strangman, saddler, said he lived at 11. hallow-held avenue, wut» his wife and two daughters. Kdith. one of his daughters, was at one time employed by Nattrass as a clerk. On Friday night, iiay'Bth, witness saw four men approachmg his house about 10 o’clock, and he warned down the

garden path and intercepted them. One of the four men asked to speak to witness, who_ said “Who are youi'” but the person did not answer. Witness then said: “1 recognise you. You were in Majoribanks street to-day.” The men said they were members of, the Society for .Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and had seen witnesscatch bis daughter by the .hai*v Thegirl was eighteen years and nine mouths old. When witness ordered the men off his premises they refused to go. His daughter Lilian was told to go tor the police, and witness’s brother guarded the gate in order to prevent the intruders from getting away. The man who acted as spokesman called out: “Get her out, lads; get her out quickly' Witness identified one of the men as Harry Nattrass, a brother of the accused. AMr Fahey, on hearing the noise, ran to see the cause, and called out: “Here they are, the blackguards.” Witness then went to the side of the house and saw two men running away from the direction of his daughter Edith’s bedroom. Tho men were in the next yard, but he recognised Howard Nattrass as being one of them. Fahey, who had a walking-stick, hit, one man with it. The men went over, a fence and a shed, and got away. He could only assume that Nattrass’s object was to take his daughter away, lie believed that Mattress was about the premises on other nights.

To Mr Myers: Ho was about 20 feet away from tho, accused when ho saw him, but was unable to identify the second man. Ho had not connived with Constable Le Ferro outside the court, and had not actually seen Nattrass about the house at night on other occasions. Tho only names he gave to the police were those of the Nattrass brothers.

Mr Myers; Is'not your daughter's window barred?

Witness: No; but the window is bo arranged that the girl cannot get out by lifting the bottom sash. Mr Myers; The door of the room js kept locked? No, -iir Mr Myers: Well.’the girl is guarded. Witness: She cannot go out unless

her mother or myself goes with her. inspector Kmerson: Did your daughter leave homo on any occasion? -•Witness: Yes, she promised her moth--or- she would not be a wav for more —-than-half anhour, and on that promise she was allowed out. - Instead of coming back in the prescribed time, she remained sway for four weeks. WARNED OFF.

Witness added that he had warned Nattrass not to come near his house. His daughter resigned her position and witness informed Nattrass that s h o would do any necessary work with the books at her homo. Nattrass came to the house with the office books on one occasion, and it was then that witness warned him. Defendant premised ho would not coerce his daughter, ■ hut later he heard Nattrass say to her: ‘Won know what the lawyer told you. Vou can leave home if you like.” Witness then told Nattrass to leave. James I'aliey. clerk, said, ho was afriend of the Strangman’s. While In Courtenay place on Friday night ho saw the accused drive by in a motorcar with a companion. Witness went as far as the Empress Theatre and hurried back to Fnllowfield avenue and arrived there about 10 o’clock. He caw Strangman and his brother come out of the house and speak to four men. One of the men was Harry •Nattrass and -another was"'Aubrey Oaulter, hut witness did not 'recognise *'ho other two. whom ho hod seen during the afternoon. One man said that they belonged to the Society' for the Prevention of Cruelty to Women and Children, but refused to give their names. Unfortunately they heard Miss Strangman say, ‘‘Let’s ring up for the police.” Hearing a noise at the side »f tho house ho ran in the direction ind saw Howard Nattrass and another »an close to Edith Strnngman’s bedroom window. They were jumping ihont like foxes and did not know xhich way to go. As Nattrass was setting away witness struck hint oßce jlith a stiok and the other man two or

three times. It was a bright, moonlight night. - •... -ALMOST CERTAIN.

Mr Myers: Are you engaged to Miss Strongman;-' Witness: Yes, although it has not been announced. Mr Myers: Are you certain that the man you saw was Nattrass y

Witness: 1 told the police I was almost certain that it was Nattrass. On being further questioned hy counsel, the witness stated that he was sure he saw Gaultor ns he spoke to him, but was not aware lie was the secretary of the Nattrass Company.

To the Bench: He' was trying to keep Gaulter until tho arrival of the police, hut he got away down a lane. Th 0 blow he struck Nattrass might not have left a mark, hut he got two or throe “beauties” to the other man. Emma Amelia Strangman, wife of the complainant, said she was in her daughter Edith's bedroom on night when she heard footsteps coming towards ■ the window. A man's voice called “Edio, Edie, Edie.” Witness recognised the voice as that of Nattrass. Someone-tried the window and her daughter, recognising the voice, became upset. Witness had known trass'for some time, to her sorrow; in fact, she had known him for_ three years. On hearing a tussle outside the window- witness became excited. Two nights previously she had recognised Nattrass with two other men in the lane near her home. She had a lot of trouble during the past two months, very serious trouble indeed there tho witness burst into tears). When her daughter hoard tho voice she got up and put on a. coat. She was very excited. Witness had no doubt that the defendant’s object was to take her daughter away. He had done so on a previous occasion when she was an inmate. of a hospital. To Mr Myers: She did not see tho ■accused on the night in question, but knew his voice and did not think it wav like his brother’s.

This closed the case for the prosecution. STATEMENT IN DEFENCE. For tho defence, Air Myers said it would bo shown to tho satisfaction of the court that the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution was mistaken evidence bn their part. Evidence would be‘ called to show that Air Gualtcr, who was a reputable business man in tho city, was not in the vicinity of Fallowfield avenue on Friday, Alay 9th, at any time, day or night, nor was Howard Nattrass.

Einar Haar, hall porter at the Midland, said he knew Nattrass, who had been staying at tho hotel on and off for" the past eighteen months. On Friday night he came into the hotel at 9.45 o’clock, spoke to the girl in the office, asked for a paper, ordered some refreshment, and went up in the lift to his room. A few minutes later, witness took a drink and sandwiches to Nattrass, who was in his bedroom partially .undressed. About 10.45 o’clock a ring came for Nattrass on the telo>hone, and the night porter switched the ’phono on to tho defendant’s room. To Inspector Emerson; He did not know if Nattrass spoko through the telephone. The accused often left a motor-car outside the hotel, but not on Friday night, as far as ho know. On-Saturday, when the defendant told witness ho might be' required to give .evidence, he replied: “Oh, that will be.alLright; I served you with a drink at 9.45 o’clock on Friday night.” It was-possible-for a man to dress and get to Courtenay place in a motorcar in fifteen minutes.

Aubrey Gualtor said he bad been in business in 'Wellington for fourteen years as a merchant and agent, and prior to that ho was an officer of the Bank of New Zealand. He held shares in the Nattrass and Harris Motor Company, and was secretary to the company. He was never near Fallowfield avenue on Friday night, and spent that evening with friends at Hatartai. It was absolutely wrong to say that Fahey spoke to him on Friday night. He

did not know him. Inspector Emerson: Why did you not make that explanation to the police? A FREE COUNTRY. Witness: The police asked me tq give Mine, explanation why I was on certain premises on Friday night, and I naturally thought they meant my friends’ premises at Hataitai. Fallowfield avenue was not mentioned. I considered that this was a free country, and I objected-to give an explanation. Inspector Emerson: You were not frightened of the police, were you? Witness: No; I had nothing to fear, but I had something to uphold. Surely, this is a free country, and not Russia. Inspector Emerson: Was Fallowfield avenue mentioned?

Witness: No; but afterwards the name of Mr Strangman was, but I was rattled. I refused then to give an explanation. Inspector Emerson: You know the Strongman’s place pretty well, do you not?

I only went there on one occasion to please a station-holder frien'd in Hawke’s Bay. The magistrate informed the witness that although he was not compelled to make an explanation to the police, it was foolish of him not to have done so when an alibi was to ho established. By not doing so the court did not know which man to believe.

Inspector Emerson: Did you say anything to a young girl outside the court. Did you say to her: “Swear by Almighty God that Nattrnss was there at twenty minutes or a quarter to ten o’clock?” Witness: The young lady whom you refer to is' very nervous, and I simply informed her of the court procedure. To Mr Myers : The police were very aggressive when they called upon him and spoke to him in the form of a threat.- They implied that the magistrate would take some action. They said: “If you do not givd a reasonable excuse why you were on the premises, such as that you had a message to deliver or that you had been asked there, the magistrate will take action, but if you do ho will probably take no further proceedings.” One of the policeman was Constable Le Fevro and the other was Sergeant Martin. He could see now that he'ought to have given an explanation, but he was' so rattled at the time that he refused to do so. It seemed to him now, however, that there was some conspiracy and he felt very hot about it.

Mr Myers said he heard n policeman say to Nattrass: “If von go about the premises again the magistrate will arrcsCyoM/* “"

The magistrate explained that he was asked on Saturday if he would issue a warrant or a summons in regard to Nattrass, and he decided that ho would issue a summons. In doing so he_ informed the police that Nattrass said he would not go near Strangman’s premises. Further cross-examined. tTi C witness said he was at the office of Bell, Gully, Myers nnd # O’Deary when the police called at his - office, hut on quite a different matter to that before the court. STATEMENT BY ACCUSED. *

Tho accused said ho was involved in an action with Strangman in the Su-

premo Court. For a witness to say that ho was on Strongman's promises on the night of Friday, May 'Jth, was incorrect. He was not there on that night or any other night. About two months ago he went to the house on the invitation of Strongman. On that occasion lie was warned not to go there again, and in consequence had not done so. His reason for going there was in regard to the company’s affairs, and he took tho books with him. On Friday night ho was in bed at the Midland Hotel hy 10 o’clock. He entered the hotel at twenty minutes to 10 o’clock, spoke to the young lady in tho office, ordered some refreshment, w'hich was brought to his room, and went to hod. He was asleep at 10.00 o’clock, when the telephone rang. He answered it, ‘ and did not leave the hotel again that night. Fie ivas not in Courtenay place on Friday night, and Fahey, whom ho knew was mistaken, certainly did not hit him with a stick.

Fahey (front, the body of the court): Why, you nearly knocked me down with the car in Courtenay place on Friday night. You were driving it yourself.

To Inspector Emerson: Ho went to bed two or three times a week at 10 o’clock. He could dress in five minutes or a little more if ho was in a hurry.- Fahey accosted him outside tho Midland once, but ho would not say if it was in regard to tho whereabouts of Miss Strangman, as it had nothing to do with the present case. Tho man who rang him up at night did so in regard to a business matter, and ho declined to give his name. He had not used his motor-car on Friday. George Barnes, liftman at tho Midland, said he remembered Nattrass going up in tho lift on Friday night at 9.4.3 o’clock. He heard Nattrass ask for refreshments, and the night porter took them to his room. The licensed did not come downstairs again that night while he was on duty. To Inspector Fanersou: Ho could not remember tho names of any other persons who came up or went down in the lift that night. Tho lift was a fast one, and took a second to go up three stories and one second to come down again.

Robert Mcßobbie, night porter, said that he connected the telephone with Nattrass’s room on Friday night. The accused was in his bedroom at the time, as he spoke to witness. Eileen Pender, clerk at the Midland, stated that Nattrass spoko to her at 9.45 on Friday night regarding a'guest who was expected to arrive at the hotel. Ho then went up in the lift, and that was the last she saw of him that night. To Inspector Emerson; When Mr Gaulter spoke to her i n court she asked him what she had to do and he told her the form of oath she would be required to take; She did not remember Gaulter say “You must remember what you aro to say and stick to it.” She did not believe he said anything of the kind. Gaulter did mention something about her seeing Nattrass in the hall of the hotel, and was told to tell the truth. Joseph Dwyer, proprietor of tin* Midland Hotel, said that there was no exit from the hotel except by the main door at night time. Mr Myers pointed out that the information -was laid under section 51 of the Police Olfonces Act. which made a person found guilty of the offence liable to 12 months’ imprisonment. The information, be submitted, should have been laid under section 6 of the Act, which provided for trespass after a person had been warned. The penalty for trespass was £lO, and ho did not think that section 51 was mbnnx. to apply in cases such as the one before the court. The defendant was a man of position and of some moans —but that did not necessarily mean that a man of means did not commit an offence. There was no doubt but that there were some persons on Strongman’s premises on Friday night, and it was fair to assume that they were there for the purpose of communicating with Miss Strangman or remonstrating with her parents for confining her. Whoever the persons were who were seen by the witness Fahey or Strongman it was not Gaulter or the accused. COMMENTS BY MAGISTRATE. The magistrate said that as far as tho legal position was concerned, he did not think that an information laid under section 6 of tho Police Offences Act would succeed. A judge had decided in a case that canio before the Supremo Court that a person who had been warned off premises on one particular day and went to tho same premises the next day was liable to be prosecuted on a charge of being a rogue and vagabond. Had he gone back again on tho same day as he was warned, he could bo prosecuted for trespass. It could be admitted that defendant’s alleged conduct was not the kind that usually came before the court, and ho was not the kind of person who was charged with being a rogue and vagabond. The suggestion in tho case was in the nature of abduction. . The v-xyitness Fahey struck the court! as ■ being absolutely honest in his evidence. To accept tho statement that ho had been mistaken, it would be necessary to prove that ho mistook the car he saw in Courtenay place and tho man driving it, despite tho fact that he was nearly knocked down by tho car. If it was nob Nattrass whom Fahey saw at Fallowfield avenue, who was it? Was there anyone else who would try and get tho girl away from her home, as was done from a hospital? There did not appear to be anyone else who had tho slightest interest in her. In regard to Aubrey Gualtcr, tho court did not know anything about his business or hia, standing in the community, and cared less. It mattered not to tho court whether a man was a member of Parliament or a man who worked on the wharf when ho came before tho court. Gualtor might have been rattled when the police first spoko to him, hut when ho recovered himsolf and was spoken to quietly ho could have given tho police all tho information they required and they could have verified it. Tho court, believed that Fahey was an honest witness and Gualtor could take what he liked out of that. Nattrass was cute enough to get tho girl away, and was cute enough, to let several people in a. busy hotel we him in order to establish an alibi, but the court was not going to allow the evidence for the defence to stand against the evidence given by Mr and Mrs Strongmen and tho witness Fahey. No man had a right to take r, man s daughter away by force, hut as a Supremo Court action was pending, he did not desire to say too much. Sc did not know if ho was right in issuing a summons instead of a warrant on Saturday morning. It might have been better to have kept the accused under lock and key, as someone might get shot. The wholo circumstances looked sinister, and it appeared that an endeavour was being made to get tho girl away. Ho had not much sympathy for tho accused, hut thought that section 20 of the Justices of the Peace Act would meet the case, as he

did not like to send the to jail as a rogue and vagabond. Nattrass would be bound over to keep the peace for a period of twelve months in a sum of £2OO and a surety of £2OO. Ho would also be ordered to pay tho cost of tho prosecution.