A STRANGE STORY.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 April 1918, Page 2

A STRANGE STORY.

CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AFTER TWO YEARS. EXTRADITION ORDER REFUSED. In the Magistrate's Court at Wellington on Thursday, before "Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., Brenda Stmart Cross was charged- that 'between January and ■July, 1910, at Sydney, she did conspire to defraud Thomas Henry Millett of large sums of money. Chief Detective Boddam appeared for the police, and Sir John Findlav, with him Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared for the accused. . '

THE GIRL'S STATEMENT, Detective Sergeant Cox gave evidence as to the arrest of the accused at "Wild Hills," Alfredton, on March 15- The warrant was read over. She mado and signed a statement, which was at follows "I, Brenda Stuart Cross state as follows: —I would like to tell you all about it. lam 21 years of age now. I was in a maternity home of the Benevolent, Society's at Sydney with my baby, I was there under the name of Brenda ■Stuart- A mail named Robert Henry Millett engaged me from the liolne as a general help to iii.s wife. This was in January or February, 1916. I was there about six months, but received no payment in money, only my food and clothes. I was only at. the Millett's two nights when lie came home one night and said that he had lost £BO,000 in a mine. He seemed so upset, that I believed and was sorry for him. From that on for the following three or four months both Millett and his wife said they would have to retrench owing to their loss. Ono day he told 'me that he would have to sell his house, but would not like to lose it altogether. They then lived at Marlborough Road, Flemington. While there Mrs Millett bought me a wedding ring so that any of their friends who called at the house would not know that I was not married. 1 had my. child tlieffe with me. I wore the wedding ring, and was known as Mrs. Stuart, my second Christian name. One day Mr. Millett told me that he intended to mortgage his house, as he could not sell it. I asked him why lie could not sell it. He said the law would not allow him to sell it, as the Government or tlie bank had a hold over the property. He then suggested to me that. I take a mortgage over his house as it could do no harm, and I was still Mrs Stuart, and would only need to sign ji few papers, which would mean saving their home for them, after all they had done for me. I agreed as t thought there was no harm. Mr- Millett told me that I would have to go to a solicitor's to sign the necessary papers- A week or two later Mrs Millett lent me a nice dress, hat, and tangle to wear when I went to the solicitors. I went to M'Laughlin and Murray's, solicitors, Sydney, on three occasions I signed several papers, 'Brenda Stuart,' in reference to Millett's mortgage. On, I thinic, the last occasion I was at the solicitor's, Mr. Millett took me to an office where there was an old man with a name like Dobbs. This old man told me to take up a dry pen and pretend to sign my signature, which had already been written on the papers that I had previously signed at the solicitor's. Mr. Millett told me that the old man was a J.P. That was all fixed up. Later, we had to leave the house and live at the back. Mr. Millett told me that "I would have to rent the house, which would be a help to them- An agent came to see me, and the house was let for £1 per week. The money for the rent did not come to me or the Millett's, tout to some other person. I received no money whatever from the Milletts or anybody else over the Millett's mortgage. Shortly after [this I received a letter w*hich friglit- ! encd me, which stated that I falsely represented myself as Mrs Stuart. I drew Mr. Millett's attention to it. He said it was a joke, ami laughed. Just after this Mrs Millett left her home, [and I also left Millett's with my child."

| Detective Cox stated that the statement was made quite voluntarily^ Lilian May Armfield, special constable from Sydney, produced the warrant issued in New South Wales for the arre3t I of the accused. 1 i CASE FOR: THE DEFENCE. ' In' opening the case for the defence, Sir John Findlay outlined the circumstances which had led to the girl going [to Sydney. When a little over 18 years of age the girl was staying at Masterton, and while there had been seduced by a man who later gave her £7O on condition that she should go to Sydney and remain there until the incident had been forgotten, and further that siie should not communicate in any way with her parents or give them any information as to her whereabouts. The young woman kept her part of the agreement, though calamity after calamity, befel her, but eventually her father discovered 'her address, and went to Sydney in March, 1917, and brought her back. Counsel maintained that a simple young girl like the accused could have no idea of how to work up a conspiracy to defraud. Her type of young woman could not possibly understand the meaning of lengthy legal documents, but siie was led to believe that .some difficulty would be overcome by the signing of the documents submitted to her. Sir John Findlay stated that in the absence of a more definite diarge ;\u<! the lack ol' any evidence he could not understand just how the fraud was perpetrated. After leaving Millett's house the girl resided for nine months with some people named Holwell, and not far from Millett's. Her address was known, but in all that time nothing was done in the mutter of bringing a charge against her. When the father brought the girl back to New Zetland and discovered w'lio her seducer had been an action was instituted, and throughout the whole of the cross-exam-ination in the lower and higher Courts nothing transpired which could have shown that the girl had been conscious of dishonesty. There was extreme bitterness displayed by the man who seduced her; bitterness was so great that he (counsel) was entitled to infer that the Criminal Court in Australia had been moved. There was something sinister in the delay of the action- The damages obtained bv the action taken by tile girl's parents had not been paid, and matters were being still further help up by a projected action in the Court of Appeal. The man who was robbed in Sydney was a money-lender, and it was strange that, the case should be initiated now after so much delay. Is counsel's opinion the young woman

should have been called as a witness in an action against the real perpetrators rather than as the. defendant in an action. Sir John Findlay then stressed the point that it was necessary that it should be shown that, tho prosecution had been brought in good faith. It was not possible to prove whether the girl had. any dishonest intentions. There was no evidence on the point. He con-' tended that no person should he ordered to be taken out of Sew Zealand on a similar warrant unless there were clear grounds for such a course. The accused gave evidence on the lines of her statement made to Detective Cox. THE DECISION. The Magistrate, in deciding the matter, said the action was brought under the criminal procedure for the State of New South Wales, but from a long experience of New Zealand criminal law the charge seemed to him to be very vague indeed. 'One would .at least expect detailed sums of money to be mentioned in such a, charge. "The accused was a simple country girl without any ideas of business, and if her story was true she 'had been duped. Again, the charge was stale in that no attempt had been made to bring it against her until she had returned to New Zealand, long after the crime was alleged to have been committed. Concluding, the Magistrate said: "While these warrants are'not to bo lightly disregarded, yet the Court must take care that extradition proceedings are not to be used, or rather abused for the purpose of either backing up or advancing a civil remedy. Looking at if fairly, it had not been made out lo m.v satisfaction that the prosecution was initiated in good faith. The accused will be ' discharged cbsolutelv."