HIS WIFE’S HONOUR

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 730, 1 August 1929, Page 1

HIS WIFE’S HONOUR

Suburban Grocer’s Amazing Story mystery phone conversations Jury Finds Douglas Guilty A SUBURBAN business man’s amazing story of a telephone conversation in which letters and a photograph impugning his wife’s honour were offered for sale by an unknown man was related before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court today.

Harry Cooper Douglas, described as a railway employee, aged 57, was found guilty on a charge of demanding money by menaces —£7 on July 17 and £2 10s on July 20.

j[r. V. R. Meredith prosecuted, and Xr. A. Noble appeared for accused. Complainant, a grocer, said an unsown man telephoned on July 7 stating he had letters written by witness’s wife to a man in town, and also some photographs of the man leaving witness’s residence at Mount Eden. The unknown man told witness that he was working for a firm of private detectives, who had divorce proceedings pending against the “man in town,” but that there was sufficient evidence without the letters. The man at the other end of the line suggested that no doubt the grocer would not like the letters and photos published in a newspaper. The letters were declared to be written four months ago, and signed “Nance,” the pet name of witness’s wife. The mysterious informant declined to met witness, but gave an assurance that he would ring again. \

On the second occasion, ten days later, the man apologised for not ringing as promised. “I still have tfeose letters,” he declared, “and the firm thinks you should give some money [or them. It will cost you £7 to get them, as my firm had to employ outside means to procure them.”

The letters were written nine months ago, the man told witness, but he declined the offer of an interview. SEEMED TO BE PROMPTED “1 wanted to be sure Ihe letters were written by my wife and told him until I saw them 1 would not believe him," added witness. “On the phone the man seemed to be prompted by someoue. There was some hesitation in his replies to questions as though he was putting his hand over the transmitter.”

Invited to visit witness's shop the maa declined, saying he had an appointment in Mount Albert and persisted in this attitude even when it was suggested that he should proceed to his business through Grey Lynn, calling on witness on his way. The man promised to try to procure the papers and gave an assurance that he would ring again. The following Thursday night the man telephoned again making an appointment at Grafton Bridge, saying that witness could sit in the back of the car and after reading the letters hard over the £7. Although he had not mentioned the threats to his wife witness had not the slightest suspicion she had written any letters. On advising his wife of the affair she communicated with the police.

After notifying the police of the appointment with the unknown jnan, he waited at the bridge for 50 minutes without anyone appearing. There was another phone call next morning ami when asked why he had not kept the appointment, the unknown voice snid that years ago witness had done a brother of his a good tnm and therefore he did not desire to see tlie papers go into the Court. ”1 cannot get the papers this morning us the bosses are very hard and the Papers have to be in by 12 o’clock,” added the voice. An offer was then made to sell witness the letters for £2 10s If witness would send for them. DID NOT BELIEVE The voice instructed witness to send a messenger, who was to hold a piece of paper in his hand, to Palmerston Buildings. Mr. Noble: What did you mean when you stated that your wife did not write any letters?—l didn’t believe she had

So that you were not perturbed when you received the demand?

I was under the impression from the start that the man was telling a pack of lies, as he did not confirm anything.

Did he threaten that he would publish the letters?—He said that his firm would use the letters as evidence in a divorce case if I did not purchase them. He told you no money was to be paid until you had read the letters?— Yes.

And you never intended to pay any money?—No, but he informed me that it had cost £7 to procure the letters. He candidly admitted that at no stage did he believe that the unknown man had any letters. He had been introduced on one occasion last year to Douglas, who was engaged in fencing. MESSENGER'S SIGNAL The young messenger, dispatched by the grocer to meet the unknown man at Palmerston Buildings, carried a piece of paper as arranged. After waiting in the corridor for a time he was approached by Douglas, who, on being told that certain letters were to be handed over, inquired if the messenger had any money. Douglas added that he would see the papers were returned to the grocer, and would not allow them to be used in divorce proceedings. After watching Douglas conversing with the messenger in Palmerston Buildings, Detective-Sergeant Doyle trailed accused down Queen Street and accosted him. Douglas confessed he had met the messenger by appointment over the phone. When questioned concerning the papers he was to hand over, Douglas replied: “I met another party who told me he had letters and photos, which I was to receive this morning, but have not done so.” The grocer was a member of his family, Douglas said, and therefore he wanted to surrender the papers to him. The mysterious man who held the papers was unknown to Douglas who knew him only as “Jock.” The detective conducted searching inquiries but was unable to locate “Jock.” He added that Douglas had never been employed at any time by a firm of private detectives. In a statement Douglas admitted the telephone conversations with the grocer, hut declared that he was working for the man “Jock.” Subsequently Douglas admitted he had been a fool to be mixed up in the business. PLEA FOR DOUGLAS Mr. Noble did not call evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury, he said that it could not be suggested that Douglas had menaced or threatened the grocer, who admitted he was not in the least perturbed by the insinuations. Accused had not threatened to publish the letters, but claimed that he was trying to secure possession of the papers to surrender to the grocer, and thus perform a good service. ■ "This is a very unusual case. It is not exactly blackmail, but it is something like it, and blackmail is regarded as one of the most cowardly and contemptible crimes in this country,” said his Honour, in summing up. The Crown had to prove that the grocer had been menaced, that money had been demanded from him, and that Douglas had the intention of stealing. The jury could judge from the facts whether or not the grocer was perturbed by Douglas’s offers to sell the letters, and whether or not accused had intentions of stealing. Iu half an hour the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Accused was remanded for sentence until "Wednesday.