BLACKMAIL CHARGE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 15, 30 October 1935, Page 3

BLACKMAIL CHARGE

NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE.

(Per Press Association). ‘ DUNEDIN, October 29. The Supreme Court to-day heard four charges against John Albert Meggett of having demanded money from Herbert Frederick Sincock with intent to steal. The request by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Adams) to the prohibition of the publication of evidence was refused. Counsel’s reason for the request was that the Crown had no means of protecting a person blackmailed against the insinuations in the letters, because their truth or otherwise was immaterial to the trial. Mr Justice Kennedy, in refusing the application, said that the case did not come within the exceptions dealt with by the House of Lords. In his opening address, Mr Adams said there was a threat to broadcast allegations against the moral character of Sincock, to whom the letters were addressed. It was alleged that there was a demand for money, and it was immaterial whether the money was for accused or some other person. The intended victim was a company manager, whose wife died in 1925. Twentyeight years ago, when both were single, he had known Meggett’s wife. They drifted apart, not meeting again till she was a married woman with children. Sincock’s evidence would be that there were no grounds for the allegation of immorality between him and Mrs Meggett, and the police evidence would show that accused admitted having written the letters (produced) to .Sincock, also that he had no evidence of immorality, but was suspicious that his wife might have been in Sincock’s company. Evidence in support of the prosecutor’s statement was given by Sincock and Detective-Sergeant Doyle. No evidence was called for the defence, and after Mr Adams had addressed the jury the court adjourned till to-morrow 1 morning.