A STRANGE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 May 1919, Page 5

A STRANGE CASE.

WELLINGTON BUSINESS MAN ARRAIGNED. ALLEGED ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION. A well known business man, Howard Nattrass, was charged in the Wellington Court on Monday with being illegally on the premises of \yilliam Strangman. Counsel for defence objected to some of the evidence, as a ease was pending in which defendant is being sued for £r!000 for the seduction of Stranginan's daughter, aged eighteen and a-half. Evidence lor the prosecution was to the effect that defendant, Aubrey Oualter, and two other men went to Strangman's house on the night of the (ith inst. with the intention of getting the girl away from her home. Gualter denied being at the. house on the night in question, and defendant also denied the charge. Howard Nattrass, the defendant, admitted that he was the defendant in some litigation about to be heard in the Supreme Court. He denied having been present at Mr. Strangman's house on Friday night, nor was he present on the property two nights previously. It waß two months a;;o since he was lastnear the house, and then be had attended to fix up some business with Miss Edith Strangman in connection with the company's affairs. ,He was in the Midland Hotel at 10 o'clock on Friday night, and did not leave there till the following morning. He arrived at the hotel at about twenty minutes to ten.

His Worship stated that- the section, really covered the type of offence where a man had entered private premises to sleep off the effects of drink; nevertheless, in this case there had been a trespass committed. The suggestion in this case was something in the nature of abduction or a similar intention. This was, no doubt, the intention of the persons who were there. After reviewing the evidence and commenting on a previous disappearance of the girl and- the relations between defendant and the parents, his Worship was convinced that defendant was present. "Who else would it be?" continued his Worship. "There is no evidence of anyone else getting the girl away—no one alse had shown any interest in getting the girl away." His Worship believed Fahey to be a perfectly honest witness, and "Gualter could take what lie liked out of it." The real defence was an alibi, but Gualter had not given the police any opportunity of proving his statement. He must take into consideration the evidence of both Strongman'and Fahey, and particularly the action of the girl Edith when she heard the voice outside the window. Mrs. Strangman recognised the voice as that of the defendant, and the girl apparently knew who it was when she jumped up and put on her coat. Defendant's intention was to take the girl away, but it was not a case of abduction. He did not think the action of the defendant was done in good faith. A man in his position should adopt proper proceedings. The proper course would have been for him to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Certainly no man had the right to go to the house and beset it to get the girl away. It was not a case for imprisonment, but he would deal with the matter under the Justices of the Peace Act, and order defendant to be bound over to keep the peace for twelve months in the sum of £2OO and one surety of £2OO. Defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.