DEMANDED MONEY BY MENACES

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 121, 15 February 1935, Page 12

DEMANDED MONEY BY MENACES

Salesman Convicted SUM OF OVER £lOOO SAID TO BE INVOLVED > Bj’ Telegraph— Press Association. Auckland, February 14. An allegation that lie had blackmailed an Auckland professional man over a, period of several months was made against Alfred McDowell, aged 26, ti salesman, who stood his trial in the Supreme Court to-day. There are ten charges of demanding money by-menaces 1 and three of accusing tlie victim of an indecent offence with Intent to extort money. The _sum involved in the charges is £407, but it was stated in evidence by the alleged victim that the sums of money lie lent or paid out under alleged threats exceeded. £llOO in a period of about two Tlie Crown prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, told the jury that whether a person who blackmailed was guilty or not of the offence of which he was accused did not affect the position. The victim could not go into any defence of the allegation made against him for that matter was not being investigated. In this case a loan was first made by t<he victim, and after further sums had been lent an accusation of an indecent offence was made. Mr. Meredith referred to tlie mass of correspondence which folio,wed the accusation. and said that its tone was threatening and that coupled with the threats were demands for money. The victim eventually consulted a solicitor and stopped the payments. Then a significant thing happened. The police received two anonymous letters casting reflections on the victim.

Alleged Victim’s Allegations. The alleged victim of blackmail, in evidence, said he had employed accused on a farm property approximately seven or eight years ago. About the time accused left that employment he asked witness for money to pay doctors 'who were treating him. Accused told witness lie was to get money from his parents who lived in Ireland and who were worth about £BOOO. Witness lent him £lO or £l5 in the first place. Later he advanced further sums on the understanding that he was to be repaid and also bought accused"a ticket to go to Australia for the purpose of collecting money which had been sent him there. “A threat was made that he wouldaccuse me of committing a crime. At that time accused was owing me about £500,” witness continued. “I merely said to him when he macle the accusation that it was absolutely false. . I was naturally afraid of the publicity that it would involve, and as I thought the money, was coming to repay me I lent him more money.” No more money was given accused after about July, 1934. A series of letters which he had received in August last year were then read by witness. There were suggestions in these letters that unless witness sent accused money, either for himself or to pay his debts, then both of them might find themselves in prison, accused for debt ami witness for an unnatural offence. Witness said he had paid about £BOO between September, 1933, and August, 1934. He had obtained an 1.0. U. from accused for £3OO which had been lent until September, 1933. He had given accused more money to keep him afloat. Case for Defence. • No evidence was called by the defence. In addressing the jury for accused, Mr. Noble submitted there was no indication of menace in the letters, nor was there any evidence that accused had intended to steal the money. Mr." Justice Fair said there was no suggestion of any kind against the character of complainant, and the allegations made by accused did not concern the case. The jury found accused guilty on three charges of extortion-ami on seven charges of demanding money by menaces. On the remaining counts he was found not guilty. Sentence was postponed.