ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 November 1917, Page 7

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES.

AN UNUSUAL CASE. WOMAN COMMITTED FOII TRIAL. A ease of unusual interest was heard at the Magistrate's Court, beforo Mr, A. Crooke, S.M., when a married woman named Mercia Naughton was charged with having received on February 16, 1917, at New Plymouth', £2O from Frederick Blenkivon Peart, by means of false pretences, with intent to defraud, and also with having, in May, ]!)17, received a further sum of £SO from Peart, by means of false pretences. Sub Inspector Hutton prosecuted and Mr. P. O'Dea (Hawera) appeared for fimised.

Sub-Inspector Hutton, in outlining the case, said that in October, 1014, an unmaTried woman named Ellen Vosper, had given birth to an illegitimate male child, in Auckland, the father of winch was Frederick Blenkivon Peart. When she came to New 'Plymouth, in February, 1010. she had assumed the name of Airs. Hetherington. She first took rooms in Vivian street, but at the suggestion of the accused, whom she met there, she took a house in Morley street. Mrs. Naughton introduced her to the. landlady as her sister. When Miss Vosper took the house she had no furniture, but she purchased some from Mrs. Naughton, paying £2O as the first instalment, and receiving a receipt. Later, a further £6O was paid as a second instalment. She considered that, the furniture had been paid for in full, but when a move was made from Morley to Vivian street more furniture was bought from the Naughtons, and as she was unable to pay for it the accused took over the house, and demanded back the furniture and also the receipts, as she was unable to pay the balance. It slit had not done so she would have been turned out of the house. Miss Vosper's secret became known to the accused, who icpeatedly threatened her with exposure, saying that she could be taken to the | police court for having changed her name. Miss Vosper went out to work, and earned from 10s to 20a a week, which was handed over to accused at the end of each week, \ihen the accused ultimately learned the name of the father of the child, she proceeded to victimise the unfortunate man. Accused sent iliss Vosper to Peart with a proposal that the child should be adopted, and tliat he should pay her .£2O to enable the arrangement to be carried nut. This proposal was ajrreed to. Some time later threatening letters were sent by accused, stating that Peart had gone back on his promise. Later, a further threatening letter was sent, which said that the matter would be brought to court, and that she would tell his wife of his lovely life. On February 16. when he came down to New Plymouth, Peart paid £2O to the accused, on accused representing that the child would lie adopted. There was never any intention on the part of Miss Vosper that the child should be. adopted. A further demand of £SO was made on May 12, in order that the child could be adopted by a couple in Otago. The Naughtons shortly afterwards moved to Hawera, and Peart found tliat ho had been victimised. The sub-inspec-tor referred to six letters written.by accused, most of them being of a threatening nature. Frederick Blenkivon Peart, a retired schoolmaster, at present editing a newspaper at Raglan, said he was a married man, and (lie father of the illegitimate child of Ellen Vosper. On August 9, lfllfi, partly in response to a letter regarding the maintenance of the child, and partly in regard to a farm property, he came to New Plymouth, and met accused and Miss Vosper in a house in Morley street. When Miss Vosper left Auckland she had. he believed, between £BO and £OO in the bank. At first, when he went to the house, accused would not allow him to see Miss Vosper, and the question of the child's maintenance was discussed bet,ween accused and himself, and he agreed with accused to maintain the child. On September 7 he received a letter from accused, in which she stated that he had gone back on his promise, and that Miss Vosper was placing the matter in the hands of a solicitor.

In response to a letter 110 visited Mrs. Naughton, and paid her 30s, telling lier that he would do all he could to see that the child was well cared for.

In January, 1017, he went to Eaglan, and on February 14 he received a further statement from Mrs. Naughton, asking why he had not "come to light" with the 30s agreed on for the upkeep of the child, and saying that, although he had been shielded up to the present, the whole matter would be "blasted out." By law be would have to pay 10s a week, but all that they were asking was ,10s per month. In response to that letter he again paid a visit to accused's house in Vivian street. On that occasion accused had proposed that the child should be adopted by someone, and had slid that she could arrange for the adoption if witness would pay down a sum ot £2O. Accordingly he drew out £2:5 from the bank, £2O of which was handed to accused, and £5 to Miss Vosper, hecause accused said it was Miss Vospsr'a wish to leave New Plymouth in tlie event of the child being adopted, and take up some occupation. As far as he could remember, both accused ar;d Miss Vosper were in the room when the money was handed over. An entry ; n his diary ran: "£2O paid to Mrs. Naughton to get John adopted by Mrs. Airhrson, and Ellen got £5 to go to Riglan.' Subsequently he got a position at Kent road as schoolmaster. He would never have taken the position had he v it believed that the matter vss cleared up. On May !) he received a letter stating that if lie would pay down £SO the child would be adopted by a v«y nice couple in Otago, and he would bo free for all time. If the sum was not paid, the accused said she would wip» her hands of the whole matter, and stated that Miss Vospcr was quite agreeable to the proposal. He wired agreeing, and f.:i May 12 visited accused, and told her that it was diflic'.i't to obtain money, as the farm had taken up all he had. He had,, then £lO in his pocketo, but accused refused to accept it. He got £5 mere which was owing to him, and later that day gave her £ls. Regarding the first payment accused said that £ls was naid as a premium to get the hoy into a home, and the balance went in i:-:-j I.ciues. Accused told him that as Mr. Naughton would be going down to Otago he would the child, and' thus save him expense. On Saturday, May 19, lie j naid the balance ( £35), which had be,-n

borrowed. Accused had offered to give a icceipt, but he did not consider it necessary. In consequeiie of something he 1 had heard he wrote to accused, and she came to New Plymouth from Hawera 011 July 11, and admitted that the child had not been adopted. Sub-Inspector Hutton: Can you tell mo. what was said on that occasion? Witness: I do not remember; there were some hieh words between us

The agreement whereby lie was to 'be freed of nil future responsibility by the payment of £oo was drawn up on July 1, anil was signed l>v accused and himself in Uic presence of .Mrs. Lewis. Sub-Inspector li'.ilton: Did you at any time bear tnat Miss Vospcr objected to the adoption of tlie childV

Witness: 1 received some intimation but cannot say whether it was by letter or by word of mouth. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Dea, witness said that he understood the child would be adopted after the money was paid. When lie found out that the child had not been adopted, the Naughtons had left New 'Plymouth, and, as fnr as he knew, Miss Vosper was then working at tiie Trocadero. He saw her two days later, and the adoption of the child was discussed. Mr. O'Dea: Did you consider it a fair thing that the money you paid to Mrs. Naughton should be paid back at the rale of 30s a week.

Witness: yes, I was quite satisfied with the arrangement, but Miss Vosper is to get the refunded money, Continuing, witness said that he had not instituted the proceedings, which ho believed had been commenced by Miss Vosper.

Mr. O'Dea: Were you satisfied with the manner in which Miss Vosper was treated by the Naughtons? Witness: I thought fehe was under the defendant's control, but I put down on paper that I was satisfied that Miss Vosper was receiving the same food as the Naughtons, and being decently treated, to please Mrs. Naughton, and at her 'dictation. Almost all the negotiations were made with accused, and o;i many occasions Miss Vosper> was not allowed to come into the room.

Ellen Vosper gave evidence that she was an unmarried woman, residing at New Plymouth, In October, 1S)14, a child was born in Auckland, of which Mr. Peart was the father, and she assumed the name of Mrs. ftetherington as she did not wish people to know, .she was not, married. Shortly after coming to New Plymouth in 1016 she made the acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Naughton. At that time she had £9O in the savings bank. Mrs. Naughton advised her to take a house in Morley street and s'lie rented the house under the name of Mrs. Hethoringtoii. Mrs. Naughton introduced her to the landlady ns her sister. She had no furniture when she took the house, and as Mrs. Naughton had some furniture she purchased it and paid, as far as she could remember, an instalment of £2O, receiving a receipt for that amount. A second payment of £OO was made later and she then considered no further unvment was to be made. She lived in Morley Street for some months and Mr. and Mrs. Naughton took two rooms in the bouse during the whole time with the exception of the -first three weeks she had the house. A move was later made to Vivian street and more furniture was bought from the Naughtons, but as she was unable to pay for it Mrs. Naughton demanded back the furniture and also all the receipts. She consented to that because she would have, been sent out of the house had she not done so. At that time it had become known to Sirs. Naughton that her name was assumed and that the child was illegitimate, and on several occasions Mrs. Naughton said that she could take her to the police station at any time for having changed 'her name, and threatened her continually with exposure? She however continued to live at the house and went out to work during the day, her earnings varying from 10s to 20s a week. The child was looked after by Mrs. Naughton during the day, and the whole of her earnings were always handed over to the accused, right up to about a fortnight before tho Naughtons went away. Mrs. Naughton had also received money from her brothers amounting to £0 or £l'o. The accused was told the name of the father of the child and had spoken about its maintenance, and said that Mr. Peart nni*t pay and wrote to him. though witness had never told 'her to do so.

In consequence of the letters he came to the house two or three times and arranged to pay 30s a month. Tlih amount witness believed had been paid but she had not received any -jf it. In February last Mrs. Naughton had spoken about Mr. 'Peart being behind in his -payments and said that something must be done for if Peart went away no payment at all would be made. The accused told her that if she would tell Peart that the child was to be adopted a sum of money could be.obtained from him.

Accused gave her to understand that the child was not to be adopted, but both were to say it was to be in order that tho money could be obtained. There was never any intention 011 'her part to have the child adopted at any time, and she had never given accused permission to have the adoption made, and she would never have consented to the adoption.

She remembered seeing Mr. 'Peart one morning on Marsland Hill in February when she was in company with Mrs. Naughton, who proposed that Mr. Peart fhonld be invited to the house, and told witness to ask him to do Soj stating that it was necessary to get the money. Mrs. Naughton told her to tell him that tho child was going to be adopted. Mr. Peart went to the house and the accused said that if he would put down £2O for the child's adoption, he would be quite clear of the child and would not be asked for any more. At first Mr. Peart stated that lie had 110 money but later left the house and returned with £2O, £l3 of which were handed to Mrs, Naughton and £5 to witness to pay 'her expenses to Raglan. As soon as Peart left the room she handed the £5 to accused, It was understood from the beginning that she was not to go to Raglan, but told untruths because she was told to do so by the accused.

On April 25 the child was put out to a licensed home, a charge of ]os per week being made. No deposit or premium was paid when the child was admitted. Since Mr. 'Peart had made the payment of £2O she had never been consulted about tho adoption of her child, and did not know of any further sum being paid to accused. after the Naughtons left New Plymouth she received a letter from accused admitting that she had told a !ot of most abominable lies and had received from Mr. Peart tho sum of £7O.

Mary Jane Bielbv deposed that she kept n registered home in Gover street, New Plymouth. She did not know accused, and no person had ever consulted her as to the adoption of the child. She had had charge of the child since April 25, and it had never been out of her care, e.veept for occasional walks with its mother. She had never been paid any sum of money for the adoption of the v child, but received 10s per,-week for its keep. Plain-clothes Constable Fitzgibbon said that he interviewed the defendant at her house at Hawera, 011 October 20. in company with Senior-Sergeant Till, and told her Unit allegations had been made that she hud sold to Ellen Vosper a quantity of furniture to the i value of something between £6O and

'i'SO, and had taken it back again," and also that allegations had been made that she had received two minis of money from Peart, one of £2O and one of .trifl, for the [iur|iose of having the child of Ellen Yo.-.per adopted, lie told her that the Commissioner of Police was giving her the opportunity of making any e.\planation she liked to make. She made a statement, which he took in writing,- in which she admitted selling the furniture, and having taken it hack again, and said .Miss Vosper agreed that she should take it back. She also admitted having received £7O for the purpose of the adoption, but said that before Ihe money was paid Miss Vosper had agreed that the adoption should be made, but aitenvards she would not agree to the proposal. She said that her husband knew nothing of the proceedings. Counsel for the defence said that Ills Worship must be satisfied that (he offence came within the meaning of false pretences. He pointed out that the pretence was that accused was going to liave .the child adopted in the future, and the pretence did not relate to anything '.hat had happened in the past. His Worship held that the case camn within the moaning of fal.-.e pretence, for the woman had authority to have the child adopted. The accused who pleaded not guilty and reserved her defence, was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in New Plymouth, bail being allowed in two sureties of £l2 10s,