ALLEGED BLACKMAIL

Taranaki Daily News, 6 December 1917, Page 6

ALLEGED BLACKMAIL

CHARGES AGAINST MRS. XAUGIITON TIIE HEARING CONTINUED. A VERDICT OF GUILTY In the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards, the hearing of the charges against Mercia Naughton of obtaining, by false pretences, various sums of money from Fredk. B. Peart, which had been commenced on Tuesday, was continued. Mr. 11. R. Billing, Croivn iSolicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. P. O'Dea \ftawera) represented accused. Fredk. B. Peart, whose evidence was partly heard on Tuesday, was further o.va'nmril bv Mr. Billing. Witness produced the written guarantee from Miss Vospcr freeing witness from any further responsibility in connection with the child. The letter was said to be in Miss Vosper's handwriting.' i MISS VOSiPER'S EVIDENCE. Ellen Vospcr said she was unmarried, and at present residing in New Plymouth. .Peart was the father of her illegitimate child, which was born in October, 1014. After that,time sho went by the name of Mrs. Hetherington. Witness was in Auckland prior to that time. Witness had a few pounds in cash, and abont £1)0 in the Auckland Savings Bank which she drew on coming to New Plymouth. Witness met the Naughtons soon after Coming to New Plymouth in the house where witness was living. Mrs.' Naughton get a house ill Morley street for witness. A lot of furniture was bought, from Mrs. Naughton. costing about £BO. Witness paid *£2o at first, promising to pay the balance when her money came from the bank. That money was paid and receipts received, which were afterwards returned to accused. Mr. and Mrs. Naughton took two of the rooms in the house for which they were to pay 10s per week. Witness was accompanied by Mrs. Naughton when she went to take the house in Morley c.treet. Mrs. Naughton told the landlady witness was her sister. They occupied the Morley street house for about three inontlis. A bigger house in Vivian street was later taken in the name of witness. The Naughtons also went ,to live in the 'Vivian street house. In Morley .street the Naughtons provided the meals and witness provided the lodgings, and no money passed between the parties. Witness paid the rent. Later witness began to he short of money, and when hills came in they could not he met. Witness went out working by the day while in Morley street and while at Vivian street. Her earnings averaged about 16s per week. Witness gave the money to Mrs. Naughton for taking care of the child while witness was working. The i-cnt of the Vivian street house was paid for about, a month Vji'hen all* witness' money had gone. Mrs. Naughton threatened to turn witness oilt of the house. Mrs Pearn owned the house and eame to collect, the rent, "but never threatened to turn witness out. When they went into the YivianVtreet. house more furniture to the value of £.'{ was bought fK>rn Mrs. Naughton. In reply to hfs Honor, witness 5^ id she bought the furniture with a View to it being paid for when more rooms in the house were let. v

THE FURNITURE DEMANDED. Continuing,witness said Mrs! Xanghton demanded tlie furniture which line! not been paid for. threatening that witness would be taken to the police station if it was not returhc-d. Mrs. Naiighton found out witness' real, name at Vivian street. One day Mrs. Naughton said a detective was at the house enquiring for Ellen Vosper and witness than told Mrs. Naughton all the story about herself and the child, and also the name of the father of the child. WitI ncss had to agree to return the furniture in order to be sure of a home for herself and tfn'R Mrs. Naughton allowed witness to live with her. All the receipts in connection wftli payments for furniture were given back to Mrs. Naughton. who took over the house and paid the. rent. She also paid for the removal of furniture from Morley street to Vivian street and for blinds put into the house. Witness then continued to go out working by the day. In reply to His Honor, witness said at holiday times she sometimes earned more than £1 per week. She never earned less than lfis per week. ing, witness said she had no new clothes about that time. She had .some of Mrs. Naughton'? ieft-off clothin?, and some clothing was given for the child by a lady for whom witness worked and also by Mrs. Naughton. Mr. Peart, came to see witness at Morley street, and Mrs. Naughton also saw him there, but did not know at the time that Mr. Peart was the father of the child. Mr. Peart also came to the Vivian street house. Witness denied writing to Mr. Peart a letter (produced) signed Ellen Vospor. Witness knew Mrs. Naughton wag going to write to Mr. Peart for money to maintain the child. She remembered Mr. Peart calling and paying .. £2O to Mrs who pretended she would have tlie child adopted. DISPOSAL OP A CHILD. It was arranged to tell Mr. Peart tWit the child would be adopted, though witness knew all the time tlmt the child would not be adopted. Mrs. Naughton did all the talking to Mr. Peart. It was arranged also that witness was to go to Raglan, .and Mr. Peart was told that, and he gave witness £5 for travelling expenses, which was handed to Mrs. Naughton; to whom witness gave all her money. Witness was always threatened by accused that she would be taken to the police station if she did hot submit to all accused's threats. The only reason witness submitted was for the purpose of keeping the child. Witness said she did not take advice regarding Mrs. Naughfcon's threats, and she did not ■speak or write 1o Mr. Peart for fear of being turned out of Mrs. Naughton's house. Regarding the registration of the child witness said she did not think the w;rong registration mattered. Mrs. Naughton told witness she was all right while she was in their house. Witness found out Mrs. Naughton was not being very kind to the child, after they went into the Vivian street house, and the child was put in another home in New Plymouth, for which 10s per week was paid. Witness did not know whether Mrs. Naughton paid rfnything for the child. Witness did not arrange for any further payments from Mr. Peart. Mrs. Naughton told witness slib was going to ask Peart for more money, which would be put in the hank for the child in her (accused's) name. Witness did not know at the time that a further sum of £SO had been paid by Peaivt t& Mrs. Naughton,for the adoption of the child. Wituii naytK wanted nor «on<«sted to the

adoption of the child. Witness admitted ' ''at Hie agreement. freeing .Mr. ■Peart from further responsibility :n connection witli tlie child was in her writing, but she had 110 recollection of having written it. She wrote everything accused told tier to because she was afraid of accused. After Mrs. Naughton went to Ifawera to live witness received a letter from Jfrs. Naughton, which counsel read. The''letter admitted thta accused had told "an abominable lot of lies'' for witness and demanded moneys from witness, using threats of sending a detective to witness, ftfention was made of some money received by witness from lier brother amounting to about £lO or £l2. Mrs. Naughton wrote to the brothers. Witness gave her their addresses / WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mr. Q'Dea, witness said when she met Mrs. Naughton she caid she was a widow. She had written to Mr. Peart and had signed his own name. She might have signed her name as Mary but never as Wilson. Mr. Peart signed the name of Peart, but sometimes used the signature of Willie Wilson. Witness owed Mr. Peart some money .which he lent her when in Morley street. She paid nothing on the last furniture bought from Mrs. Naughton, and the furniture was taken back by Mrs. Naughton, who paid nothing but kept witness and her child. The money borrowed from Mr. Peart was repaid when witness got her money from the Auckland Savings Bank. Witness detailed the various places at which she went to work by the day. When witness could not pay her *'ent at Vivian street Mrs. Naughton took over the whole place. Mrs .Naughton bought some new clothes for witness, and also some things for her child. Mrs. 'Naughton told witness she could have a "home with her as long as she liked. Witness took a place in service but had to sleep under the Naughton's roof because they told her they were saving her from gaol. Witness wrotq to Mr. Peart for maintenance at Mrs. Naughton's dictation. Witness was at present living with a Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Witness was told by Mv.~. Naughton that she had written to Peart for maintenance, but did not know what amounts had been received. Witness was present when Peart paid £2o' to Mrs. Naughton and also received £5 which was given to Mrs. Naughton. It was accused who suggested that witness should go to Piaglan. The Nanghtons thought witness would get on better out of Nev Plymouth. It was an understood thing that the child was not to be adopted. W'itnesvs never told Mrs. Naughton what to do with any of the mr/.ey. Witness never saw or wrote to Mr. Peart unknown to Mrs. Naughton. Witness admitted being sent by Mrs. Naughton to a house agent's office to say they would buy a 'house and pay a deposit of £IOO, but no business was ever 'done. Witness did not know of the £SO received by Mrs. Naughton from Peart. Accused mentioned that she was sending to Peart for some money. When accused left New Plymouth for Hawera she never mentioned anything about repaying the £SO. Witness was receiving the repayment of the £SO by instalments. Witness never received Peart'sinstalments for maintenance; they went to Mrs. Naughton. Witness did not know how accused found out her real name was Ellen Vospor. To Mr. "Billing: Witness had a good stock of clothes for her child when she came to New Plymouth. When out at work witness got her nicals where she was working. Before staying with the NTaughtons witness had no trouble about getting maintenance from Peart. Mary .Tane Piielby. sworn, said she kept a registered home in Cover street. New Plymouth. On April 25. 1017, she received Ellen Vospcr and received 10s per week for its keep. Had not received any premium for the adoption of the child. The mother of the :hild brought him to the home. Witness did not know accused, and saw her first lit the previous hearing of the ease. The child was still in witness' home. A CONSTABLE'S EVIDENCE. Thos. Fitzgibbon, plain clothes constable (New Plymouth) said he interviewed accused at Hawera. lie told her i>! 'lie allegations that had been made aga'nst her regarding the moneys re<ei' 'd and also the taking back of furniture that had been sold to Miss Vospcr. Accused bad made a written statement (which was read by Mr. Billing). Witness said he had never called at accused's house to enquire for Ellen Vosper.' The name of Ellen Vosper had not come under the notice of the police until action in the present (proceedings was Hken. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

Mercia Naughton, beititf sworn, said she was married, and was the wife of Constable Naughton, of Hawera. She first met Miss Vosper in February, 1!)1G, at New Plymouth, who made out she was a widow. She was known by the name of Mrs. Hetherington, whose husband had died in Christchurch Hospital and Jeft her penniless, with a sick child. The husband was represented as having mining interests at Westport. Under examination by Mr. O'Dea, accused detailed the. : circumstances connected with securing the house in Morley street, which, she said, had been secured for Mrs. Hetherington. did not tell the landlady anything about Mrs. Hetherington. Accused did not go to live with Mrs Hetherington until some time after that. Someone else had lived in the rooms first. She and her husband took the rooms later, in order to help Mrs. Hetherington. Witness remembered Mrs. Hetherington receiving a slip from the P.O. bank, which was signed by witness. . Mrs. Hetherington had bougnt some furniture from witness, in order to help fit up the house. She paid £3O for the furniture. "When accused took the rooms she paid 10s per week for them. She also kept Mrs. Hetherington. They wont to Morley street in .Tuly of last year, and some little time later removed to a house in Vivian street. At Vivian street Mrs. Hetherington paid only two weeks' rent. The landlady (Mrs. Pearn) came for the rent. When it became known that Mrs. Hetherington could not pay the rent,, the landlady agreed to witness taking over the place. This was 'arranged, and accused.also paid bills for, and lent money to, Mrs. Hetherington, before she knew who slie really was. When Miss Vosper told her secret to accused, she also told her who the father of the child was. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Cross-examined by Mr. Billing, witness could not give the name of the landlady of the Morley street house. She said she first met Mr. Peart at Morley; street, before going to live with Miss Vosper. He was in front of the house, with an axe in- his hand. When Miss Vosper got the money from the post office, witness signed the slip, as she thought it was for identification by the post office. Miss Vosper bought about £3O worth of furniture, and paid for it wheiK she got the money from Auckland. Witness did not go to the post office, but merely signed the slip. She supposed if the post office officials did not know her they could easily find out who she was. She did not , se lt more than £3O worth of furniture.

The landlady knew accused, or accused assumed that the agent had told the landlady who she was. Witness said the clothes of her child could not fit the child of Miss Vosper. Her child was much bigger than accused's. Witness said Miss Vosper told her the money she had was in the post office savings'bank. Witness did not know all the places where Miss Vosper worked when they were at Vivian street. Witness did not take much interest in the work of Miss Vosper. She knew she worked at the municipal offices because of what Peart said in a letter to accused. She could not remember when it was. Accused got. the position at the borough offices for Miss Vosper. Some of the money earned was ■put on the mantlcpiece and some was handed to accused. All the money was not handed to accused. Witness could not say that she received all the money earned by Miss Vosper. A 5-guinca costume was bought for £4. The costume was bought, for Miss yosper. Under pressure, witness admitted the costume was made for herself, and had been worn once by her, but said it could not be called a second-hand costume. The costume was given to Miss Vosper. Did not have any second-hand clothes to give her. It was at Vivian street that she ascertained Miss Vosper was single. Miss Vosper told her her real name, and asked accused to write to her brothers. Witness said Miss Vosper had 110 time for Peart. She was introduced to him as a missionary from Home. A MISSIONARY WITH AN AXE. Did you not think it peculiar that a gentleman missionary from Home should be there with an axe?— Yes. I thought perhaps Miss Vosper was nervous, and lie was giving her the axe to keep the burglars away. Miss Vosper wrote to Peart, witness said, unknown to her, and said she had told accused all about her own position. She later saw* Peart at Morley street, when he gave accused 20s. He paid in,all about £O, but did not keep up his payments for maintenance. Miss Vosper knew all the letters that accused wrote. She helped her with the spelling in some of the letters. Miss Vosper had said that unless strong language was used Peart would not pay. The threats in the letters were not true, but were used to bluff Peart, The first mention of adopting the child was made by Peart, who said it would be a great blessing to both of them to have the child adopted. Miss Vosper's brothers also urged that the child should be adopted. No copies of letters were kept. Ac-i cused said her intentions were not bad. She had told Peart she would do her best to get the child adopted, and if she failed, would take care of it herself. She told Peart that whoever took the child would get the £'2o. It was subsequently that Miss Vosper said the child could not be adopted, and that it had been wrongly registered, and that would be trouble if the child was adopted Accused told Peart that the child could not be adopted, on account of the wrong 'registration. Peart gave Miss Vospcr £5 to take her to Raglan, £2O being given to accused. She offered a receipt, but Peart said he did not want it, and that she could keep the money for looking after the child. Accused admitted writing to Peart for £SO, but said Miss Vosper knew she had ivritten such a letter. Peart saw accused at her house on a Saturday, and she told him her sister down south would take the child, but not adopt it. If that failed, accused agreed to look after the child. Peart paid £SO, of which Miss Vosper knew. Nothing was said about a premium for the adoption of the child. Referring to the statement that accused signed and gave to Constable Fitzgibbon, witness said she was quite flabbergasted at the time, on account of the surprise, and did not remember what she told him. She had never mentioned; to anyone that she know of a place in'Otago where the child would be adopted. Neither did she remember the document agreeing to free Mr. Peart from all obligations in regard to the child. When she went to Hawera accused offered Miss Vosper and her child a home at any time. She had received a letter from Peart about the adoption of the child. She went to see Miss Vosper in July, and wanted her to accompany accused to see Peart, but Miss Vospcr would not go. Accused met Peart alone, and wanted him to go to a lawyer and have the matter of the repayment of the £SO fixed up properly, but Peart produced an agreement providing for repayments by instalments, and that was decided ujion. >Shc had paid back four instalments, but was able to pay the whole amount. Miss Vospcr and her child were with' accused about 14 months, and their keep during that time would be worth about ."0s per week. Accused had received about £25 from Miss Vosper, £8 or £lO from her brothers, and- £25 from Peart. She had also paid out for clothing for Miss Vosper about £l2. It was Mr, Peart who first suggested that Miss Vosper should go to Raglan.

A CERTAIN LETTER. Continuing, accused detailed the circumstances of the occasion on which Miss Vosper received a certain letter at the Morley street house. Miss Vosper tried to deceive accused, but later admitted having received a letter, though at first Miss Vosper had denied getting a letter. Miss Vosper told accused about Peart signing himself as "Willie Wilson." One day Miss Vosper was burking some letters, and accused got hold of one which Miss Vosper's child had. The letter waT5 signed "Willie Wilson." Accused asked Miss Vosper what it meant. Accused said that on the day Miss Vosper received the letter which she tried to hide from accused, witness saw, from the washhouse, where she was working, that Miss Vosper received a letter, and that she tucked it away in her blouse. When it was admitted that the letter had been received, Miss Vosper broke down and told her the whole story.

Mr. Billing here put it to witness tliat she had looked into Miss Vosper's belongings, and there that she had received letters from Peart which were signed ''Willie Wilson," and had taken a letter and told a Mr. Corkill about it. Accused denied' such conduct, but later admitted she might have told him about it, She further admitted having been in Corkill's but Jhat it was on her own private business. She finally admitted showing Covkill the letter in his own office, Continuing!' witness said she could not say whether she or Miss Yosper wrote to the latter's brothers. She denied dictating the agreement signed by Miss Vosper, and had never seen it before that day.

Mr. Billing: Isn't it like your dicta tion?—lt might be.

Witness, continuing, said that both Miss Yosper and herself were evidently simple, or they would not be in the present predicament. Accused said six;, was not more upset now than on the occasitm when the detective visited her, and suggested that she had been fleecing Mr. Peart. Accused said the suggestion regarding the adoption was made by Peart before lie paid the £2O. Jt. was after the £2O had been paid that Miss Vosper said the child coul4 not be adopted, on ae«ount of the wrong registration. She thought the child could be re-

gistered in any name. She did not think it was hasty to write a threatening letter to Peart only nineteen days after Peart had promised to help. She said a letter had been received by Miss Vosper, from Peart, stating that lie had enlisted, and might be leaving the country. Accused believed that Miss Vosper told her. TO HELP MISS VOSPER. His Honor: Why did you dictate the letters'and not get a lawyer to write? —I was trying to help Miss Vosper. I suppose we were very hasty.

His Honor: 1 don't consider it hasty, but pertinacious. In reply to his Honor, accused said she had written all the letters solely to help Miss Vosper. She 'also said "that the letter demanding the £f>o was written with a view to getting money for the adoption of, the child, although she admitted that before that time Peart already knew the child could not be adopted. Continuing under Mr. Billing's crossexamination, witness said it was Miss Vosper's idea to tell Peart about accused's going to Nelson to tell Peart's wife all about it. Though Miss Vosper was very deep, accused liked her and trusted her. Though Peart knew the child could not be adopted, she could not say why ho should pay the money demanded.

To his Honor: Thought Peart would pay the money to prevent exposure of his position.

His Honor: That is, you used blackmail?—Oh! no. I only wanted to help Miss Vosper. Further cross:examined, witness said she was not afrftid of Miss Vosper after accused moved to Hawera. She came up to New Pylmouth to give the £SO back, to Miss Vosper, but Miss Vosper would not see her. She met Peart, and he, by his own consent, agreed to accept repayment by monthly instalments, although she had the money to pay the whole amount. Mr. O'Dea now held the money.

Mr. Billing then traversed various statements made, and letters written, by accused. In reply to questions, witness made many contradictory answers regarding her attitude towards the others concerned in the case. ALLEGED FALSE EVIDENCE. In reply to his Honor accused said sh.e believed Miss Vosper was capable of coming into coiirt and swearing to a pack of lies in order to get the accused convicted, and also that. Mr. Peart had given false evidence against her.

Continuing, witness said she had no idea how the police had got hold of the facts on which they had taken ac- f tion. She was very much surprised, and had been 'keeping the particulars quiet. Witness persisted that Miss Yosper and herself were equally concerned in concocting the- threatening letters to Mr. Peart. Accused said she did not mean all that was written in the letter which she sent, from llawera to Miss Vosper. When Constable FitzgiTSbon visited accused at ITawera, and when he read a statement to her she did not take much notice of it. She did not think it was very serious, but she was much upset at the visit. Regarding the furniture taken baek from Miss Yosper, accused said she paid for £3O worth of furniture. She declared that gams of the'matterj in the

| statement she signed for Constable Fitzj gfbbon were not correct. Constable Fitzgibbon was recalled and J stated that the document was a tnic i record of what Mrs. Nanghton had said ! at the time to him. ! In reply To Mr. O'Dca, he said that Mrs. Nanghton had said a, grent deal more than appeared in the signed statement, biit he was only concerned with j matters affecting the present case. I Mr. O'Dca, before addressing the jury, •suggested that so far as the fulse'pretences were concerned they were only promissory pretences, and in conference • with tyis Honor and the Crown Solicitor some of the counts were slightly amended, . Counsel then addressed the jury and his Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 5 p.m. VERDICT OF GUILTY. The jury returned at 0.55 (p.m. with a verdict of guilty on all charges, but with a recommendation to mercy, bein« of opinion ' that accused was not fully aware of the seriousness of her actions at the time they were'eommitted. Mr. O'Dca asked that the provisions of the Fir.st Ofi'cmTers Probation Act be extended to the prisoner. Hi* Honor said that the verdict of the jury was to the effect that criminal intent had been established, and.lie did not see thaf lie could grant probation. Mr. O'Dca further pleaded % leniency, and asked that prisoner be ordered to come up for sentence wlim called upon. He pointed out that shuTvava mother and had a child of 2>} years of age. j He also said he felt quite sure there would be no further conduct of such a nature on the part of prisoner. Her I husband was a police constable, but wa* I under suspension on account oi the pros- ' en.t case, but he was quite sure that j the husband would ..kfcep prisoner under i proper control for the future. j The husband was called and gave his j that there would Hie no further ! misconduct' on the part ,6f liis wife. ! Prisoner, he said, was 23' years of age, I and they had been married just over ! four years. | His Honor ordered prisoner to come up ' for sentence at 10 o'clock next morning, i The Court then adjourned.