PAPAMOA MYSTERY

Northern Advocate, 14 November 1929, Page 4

PAPAMOA MYSTERY

CHALLENGE OF MR. COONEY,

MINISTER WILL REPLY,

WELLINGTON, This Day.

The Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, when asked if he intended to reply to the challenge issued by Mr. H. 0. Cooney, of Te Puke, following his survey of tho Elsie Walker case, said that after the end of the session rush he would prepare and publish an effective reply to Mr. Cooney. Mr. Cooney, who is legal adviser to Mrs. Margatot criticised Mr. Wlford’s conclusions, and challenged him to prosecute Mrs. Thomason on a charge of -perjury.

THE COONEY CHALLENGE, . MINISTER'S SPIRITED REPLY. (Per Press Association.—Copyright.; WELLINGTON, This' Day. , “While I have .not the police,files in front of mo, some of which are in Auckland, and consequently cannot reply to the whole of Mr Cooney's statements, I feel I should not wait in icplying to his challenge,’’ says tho Hon. T. M. Wilford in a statement today. “Mr Cooney issues a challenge ro me to prosecute Mrs Thomason for alleged attempted blackmail, under, of course, the proper section of the Primes Act. I can hardly believe Mr Cooney is serious. The word blackmail does not appear in the whole of my statement. I will requote from my statement the only passage upon which 1 think Mr Cooney can rely for his ridiculous challenge. Here is the quot a tlon

" ‘By arrangement she (Mrs Bayly), then went to Wanganui, where, according to Mrs Bayly, . Mrs Thomason asked from Mrs Bayly a large sum of money. AU though Mrs Thomason denies to flip police making a demand for money, it is significant that she names the exact sum of money mentioned by Mrs Bayly, namely £IO,OOO, as being discussed between them. It ip quite clear that at this interview the payment of money was discussed between the women. ’ "That must .be the excerpt from the statement made by me upon which Mr Cooney challenges me to prosecute Mrs Thomason for blackmail. There is no other that could possibly apply to it. Mr Cooney, dropping all discussion on the discrepancy between the statements of Mrs Thomason and Mrs Langdon, fastens on to the paragraph mentioned above, and says ‘I challenge the Minister of Justice to prosecute Mrs Thomason for blackmail.’ Surely Mr Coonc-y knows, as a lawyer, there is no evidence which would justify such a proceeding. I can hardly believe he is not aware of that.

"In conclusion, I would like .to ask Mr Cooney, as Mrs Thomason admitted mentioning the sum of £10;000 as being discussed between herself and Mrs Bayly, what were they ' talking about?"