WHY NELLIE LEFT HOME.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12401, 24 October 1903, Page 2 (Supplement)

WHY NELLIE LEFT HOME.

REMARKABLE CHARGE OF ATJDLT TION. ■ Tite somewhat remarkable charge of ibfaM . ing a girl, named Nellie Braine, 15, whose parents live in Coronation Parade, Lectori which has been brought against "Sin. •well, of Gienfalg Road, Catford, was fartWr gone into by the Stratford magistrates, 0 a September 5. A development of the 'caj,, was that Noah Henr> Chalkier, a dairy, man, living in the same road as Mrs. * well at Catford, was now placed in the dock also on a charge of being concerned in the abduction. Mr. Shannan said there appeared to be no doubt that to a great extent tin woman had acted under the influence of th man. He was told that her Husband was in Chalkley's employ, and probably she had been led away by one in a position far m perior to herself. It was alleged that the*, was an arrangement for the adoption of the girl by Chalkley and his wife, but this th« father denied, and even if it was so it wou'd not affect it, for the father, having got po'rf session of the girl, be was entitled to Seen her. The girl, without a doubt, had CQ t under evil influences, and they could not* every instance accept her word as being or. actly true, and this was one of tie bitter results of the influence that had been exeited over her. One thing he must now ntefi* tion was that on one occasion Mr. and Mm* Clialkley and this girl of 15 all slept in , t l bed, and under these circumstances the fs;;h. er would be most anxious to have the leml and proper custody of his child. Mr. Hale! • That fact has not been in evidence. Mr. Shit'. man : lam ?oing to prove it. Mr. Shaman then referred to a number of documents, aim said he should ask for a committal not'onlr for abduction but for conspiracy. The fata*, er was now recalled and further examined" Ho said that on July 1 he wrote to Mr' Chalkley saying that his was leaving (Jsitford and intended taking his daughter Xel" lie with him. He received no reply from Chalkley, but the girl wrote. On August 16 witness went and saw Chalkley aud demanded the girl, but he did not get her. As he was coming away, however, he met her in the street, and brought her home_ After they got home the following telegram arrived : —•' Mrs. Braine, 9. Coronation Parade Leyton. Look out for Nellie; run away from her father here at four o'clock ; threatened suicide. —Ckalkj-EY." The girl Was then at home aud no notice was taken of th» telegram. On August 11 witness received a letter front a solicitor referring to a "breach of agreement" as to the adoption of the girl Nellie," and also with regard to "slanderous statements." This letter contained a threat of legal proceedings.. He sent no reply. On August 11 another telegram was' received, this time from St. Leonards. "'Mr, Braine. Do you intend to keep promises made November last, re Nellie? If so, must have reply here by half-past —Ghautley." No reply was sent. In cross-exami-nation witness said he had no ill-feeling against Mr. Chalkley. The girl, Helen Elizabeth Braine, was recalled, and her evidence having been read Mr. Sharman endeavoured to elicit from her the contents of letters that had passed between the parties. Rodwell brought witness two letters, the first from Mrs. Chalkley, but " there was nothing in it." The night before witness went away Rodwell brought a second letter, and she gave her one in return. She did not remember what was in the letters ; she had destroyed them both. The Chairman (Mr. P. Savill) : How did it finish? Only in a friendly "way, "Your ever loving friend or your affectionate friend." Do you remember on one occasion sleeping in the same bed with Mr. and Mrs. Chalkley? Yes; I did on one ocasion when Mr. Chalkley was ill, and I was assisting to nurse him. How long was that ago? Three or four months. As regards the letter read last week sent by Mrs. Rodwell, was that true or not? There was no truth in that. Did you ever hear from your father or mother that you were to be adopted? I did not hear them say it, but I always understood it? From whom did you understand it? From " people."

For the defence Mi. Hales submitted that the statute never contemplated such a set of facts as was before them. There was no

evidence of taking away, and the prosecutor had endeavoured to call the King's aid t« further his own private ends. The Bench decided that there was a prima facie case, and committed both prisoners for trial, admitting them to bail.