ABDUCTION CHARGE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26985, 10 March 1953, Page 6

ABDUCTION CHARGE

FARMHAND TO STAND TRIAL LOWER COURT HEARING (New Zealand - Press Association) HAMILTON, March 6. Pleading not guilty to abducting Wendy Dawn Fahey, a girl under the age of 18, Bartelo Cesare Russo, aged 37, a farmhand of Cambridge, was committed for trial in the Supreme Court by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Hamilton today. Two charges of wilfully obstructing the police in the execution of their duty were adjourned. Wendy Dawn Fahey said in evidence that she met Russo last year and on October 25, at Russo’s suggestion, she went with ’him to his cottage some distance from his parents’ home, but on the same property. She stayed there until January 6, sometimes spending the day down in a swamp hnd hiding behind a tallboy at night if Russo had visitors. ( Vernon Daniel Fahey, father of the previous witness, said that on October 26 when his daughter went missing, he telephoned accused, who said he had brought the girl home from the Rotorua races on the previous night and had left her about 10 p.m. Witness reported the girl’s disappearance to the police and had visited accused’s farm but accused insisted that he did not know where she was. Witness said that as a result of the girl’s disappearance his wife was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. When his daughter returned she was in a low state of health and was terrified of the dark.

Constable J. G. McHugh, of Cambridge, said he saw accused on numerous occasions about the disappearance of the girl. Accused always maintained that he did not know her whereabouts or anything that would assist. Witness said that because of accused’s statements, it was often necessary for other police work to be left unattended because of the amount of public feeling and the condition of the girl’s parents. There was a considerable amount of police work involved in searching for the girl and making inquiries. Witness considered he was obstructed in the course of his work.

Police Evidence Detective J. Hayes, of Hamilton, said that on February 6 he interyiewed accused at the Cambridge police station. Accused told him the girl-did not live with him and had not been on his property from October 25 to January 6 Accused said that during the period she was missing, he* had received four telephone calls and two letters from he £ 9? February 9, witness, together with Senior-Detective H. A. Hay and Constable McHugh, arrested accused, who was charged with obstructing the police m the execution of their duty. £or Russ°, Mr N - s - Johnson, submitted there was no case to answer. He said it was incumbent on the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the girl was taken to accused’s home for the purpose of having sexual intercourse Counsel contended that accused had no legal duty to return the girl to her home. The girl was free to go home if at any time she wanted to. Accused might have been guilty S? gr^ve breac h of moral duty, but the Court was concerned only with a of a le § ai duty. The Magistrate said that as the accused had elected to go to the Supreme Court, he did not feel bound to decide these points raised by counsel. He said he was concerned only with whether was a ease to answer. ] Wa K? strate referred to the disparity in the ages of the two principal persons involved at the time their nr5, C^ 10 “ be . gan - The girl w as only a iponth or two over the legal age of consent. Accused was experienced and the evidence showed he was conversant with methods of procuring ™ ( abor o ?' Person whose consent was involved in the abduction ?vas the girl ’ s fath er. not the girl. A jury might take the view that accused was a schemer and that there jja d been a machiavellian scheme to a . wa ? frora home and -atisfy his lust for her. “I am not “tL to decide these matters," he a a fery mlgt a^ S ° nable ™ WS that ~,u? e Ma^lst rate allowed bail of £2OO i ur ?X of £2O0 ’ and made the condition that accused report to the Cambridge police daily. He said close °L needed because previhariy ha ? een stated that accused wm, a +£ empted t 0 accost and interfere with the principal witness.