ALLEGED BLACKMAIL.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1917, Page 2

ALLEGED BLACKMAIL.

PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. CASE AGAINST A CONSTABLE'S WIFE. In the Supreme Court, at New Plymouth, yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve, Mercia Naughtim was charged on various counts of obtaining, by false pretences, various sums of money from Frederick B. Peart. Mr. Billing represented the Crown, and Mr. P, O'Dea (Hawera) appeared for accused. The following jury wag empannelled: Messrs J. M. G. Smeeton, I'. J. King, Cha9. Colson, Cliast. N. Johnston, A. J. Bale, P. Godenoiigh, H. Derby, P. Newell, W. H. Smith, Boy Parkin, A, G. Nixon, and o. M. Hill. Mr. Hill was chosen foreman.

Mr. Billing, in outlining the. case, said there were sevoral people concerned in it. Accused, with her husband, who was a "police constable, came to New Plymouth about 18 months ago. They had lived with Miss Vosper, Who was the mother of the illegitimate child over Which the trouble arose. Miss Vosper | had also been known as Mrs. Hetherington. While the Naughtons lived with Mies Vosper, Mrs. Naughton had learned the secret about Miss Vosper's child, and that Peart was the father. The charges, of which there were several, were of obtaining money from Peart" by falsely representing that the amounts claimed were in connection with securing the adoption of the child. It was alleged that Mrs. Naughton had Anally asked ■Mr. Peart for a sum of £SO, on behalf of the child, and that if he paid that he I Would be free from any further obliga-: tion in regard thereto. It was found that the child had not been adopted, as arranged by Mrs. Naughton,'and the police, learning the facts of the case, took action, and the, present case was the outcome of that action. Evidence would be brought to show that Miss Vosper had refused to allow. the child to be adopted. If the charge of false pretences could not be sustained, accused could be charged with the theft of moneys, counsel thought that the evidence would satisfy the jury as to the false pretences. Frederick B. Peart, sworn, said he was the editor of a newspaper at Raglan. He was a retired schooltfiaster. His wife and family lived in Nelson. He knew Miss Vosper, who had gone by the name of Mrs. Hetherington. She had an illegitimate child, of which witness was the father. Witness was in New Plymouth in August, 1916, in connection with a farm he owned at Omata, and also in connection with the child. He met accused, who lived in the same house as Miss Vosper. Something was said about the cost of keeping the child, but witness thought Miss Vosper had plenty of money, and she was also earning money. A letter was read by Mr. Billing, purporting to come from Mrs. N'aughtgn, to witness, demanding moneys for the maintenance of jMiss Vosper and th: child. Aft'c receiving the letter, witness went to see Mrs. Naughton, and told her that he thought Miss Vosper had plenty of money in hand. He paid 30s at that time to accused, and on September 16, 1916, he paid her another £l. He saw Misr Vosper on one of the occasions. He sent a further £1 to Miss Vosper on November 22, but the letter went astray. The other moneys were paid to Mrs. Naughton. In reply to a letter from Mrs, Naughton, received on February .14, 1917, witness came to see Mrs. Naughton about having the child adopted. Witness agreed'.to find .£2O. Various other lotters and interviews passed between witness and accused and Miss Vosper, and amounts of money were paid, on the understanding that the child svas to be adopted. Witness obtained no receipts for the moneys paid, as he waß Bp glad to have the matter settled that, he said, it did not matter about a receipt, so long as it was all right. In July last witness came to New Plymouth and had an interview with Mrs. Naughton, in company with a Mrs. Lewis, at the Terminus Hotel. During that interview an agreement was reached by which Mrs. Naughton undertook to pay back to witness the sum of £SO, by instalments of 30s per month, and when the whole sum was returned, all correspondence that had passed between the parties was to be exchanged, • and no further communication to take place. In reply to Mr. O'Dea, witness said lie had corresponded with Miss Vosper, under the name of Wilson. He himself had been known as Willie Wilson. Witness had never made out he was a missionary from Home. Miss Vosper had written to witness at Nelson, asking for maintenance for the child. Had sent her a £5 note, but could not remember when he sent the amount. Witness paid Miss Vosper's passage from Auckland, and gave her softie money besides. Witness had received £3O from Miss Vosper, in repayment of a loan of £35, and he said she need not bother about the balance. Miss Vosper was present when the £2O was paid to Mrs. Naughton, and he concluded that Miss Vosper knew what the money was for. Miss Vosper did not speak to witness. He understood she agreed to the child being adopted. Witness had no idea of going to Piaglan himi self when he told Mrs. Naughton that i there was a good opening at Raglan for Miss Vosper if she would go there. He gave Mrs. Naughton £s' for Miss Vosper's expenses to Raglan. Witness knew that the £2O had not been used in connection with the. adoption of the child when the £SO was asked for. He did not know any more than that the child was in New Plymouth. Witness did not inquire if the motley had been paid as a premium for the adoption, of the boy. Mention v/aa made of a place in Otapo where the child would bo adopted. Witness did not knew if Miss Vosper knew about the £6O. Two payments of £ls and £35 were made, the latter being paid on a Saturday. He knew Miss vosper was working somewhere. Accused admitted at the interview at New Plymouth in July that, the child had not been adopted. Accuse! did not jigree to repay the £SO until some pressure was used. Four instalments of 30s per month had been repaid regularly Bince the agree* ment was reached. Witness said he would be quite' satisfied to have the £SO returned. He might have told Mrs. Naughton she could keep the other money on account of the maintenance of the child. Witness know the child was not registered accurately. Mrs. Naughton told him that the child was not adopted because all the facts regarding the wrong registration Would then come out. The £SO that was being repaid went to Miss Vosper, He had received a'guarantee from iMiss Vosper that he would not be troubled by her any more for iponey for the child. He did not Bee Miss Vosper between May and July 18. He saw her about nine days after the agreement was signed. Re-examined by Mr. Billing, witness Baid that the fact of the child being registered in the imme of Hetherington being given as the reason for not'having it adopted, had been communicated to him by letter. It was said that the dif-

ficujty would be overcome if the .child wiis sent down soutfi, If he hud known the child could not be adopted he wpuld not have paid the "£SO. \ Prior to the payments to Mrs. Naughton, witness had also made payments to Miss Vosper. In all he had paid about £l3o< Miss Voaper had never made any complaints regarding his treatment of her or the child, and he knew that Miss Vosper knew he would stand by her. At this stage the hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.