MAY HALLETT IN LONDON

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14806, 9 October 1911, Page 9

MAY HALLETT IN LONDON

CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES

AN AUCKLAND LADY'S MONEY.

FRIENDSHIP ON BOARD SHIP. ■ 4

RESULTS IN LOAN OF £150.

EXPECTATIONS UNDER A WILL. [from our own correspondent.] , London, September 1. Mr. Plowden was occupied for several hours on Wednesday and Thursday at the Marylebone Police Court in hearing the charge against Mrs. Ethel May Campbell (nee Hallett), aged 23, of South Side, Clapham Common, of having by false and fraudulent pretences obtained £150 from Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Foote, of Auckland, with intent to defraud. Mrs. Campbell will be better known in New Zealand as May Hallett.

-Mrs. Foote, who is now living at Hampstead, gave her evidence a week ago. During the voyage Home from New Zealand the defendant became on friendly terms with Mrs. -Foote, and is alleged to have made. „ various statements concerning her expectations. Once, it is alleged, she represented herself as a daughter of the late Sir Richard Hunter, of Horley, Surrey, formerly Lord Chief Justice of England, and said she was going to England to take ever property that she had inherited at Horley under her father's will; and was to receive an income of £500 a week. It is also alleged that she said she owned racehorses and that Mr. Horatio Bottomley was looking after them. 4 Mr. Plowden said he had had a letter from Mr. Bottomley disclaiming all knowledge of 'the defendant, and denying that he was interested with her in racing.

Five Hundred Pounds a Week. Miss Myra Foote corroborated her mother's evidence. During the voyage on the Commonwealth the defendant told her she had two horses running in the Derby, and that Gatwick racecourse stood on the estate which her father had left her, and which she was going Home to claim. The income of the estate, defendant said, was - £500 a week. On June 11 witness and ' her mother saw the defendant at Brighton, and went- for a motor ride. On their return to the hotel the defendant complained that she had been robbed. The following day they all motored to London, and Scotland Yard was notified. On their way through Horley defendant pointed out a very nice house as belonging to her. On the morning of June 14 defendant came t to Sirs. Foote's house at Hampstead, and complained of a second robbery. t She said that £150 and the remainder of her jewels had been stolen. She asked Mrs. Foote for a loan, and witness telephoned to her brother, in whose name their money stood. The next day her brother handed defendant a cheque for £150, and witness accompanied her to the Bank of New Zealand, where it was cashed, defendant taking the numbers of the notes, because she said she might be robbed again.

A Flat for Coronation Week. i Miss Foote said defendant, told them she possessed a flat in Park Lane, and if only the tenants would leave they could . all use it at Coronation time. Defendant seemed agitated on the morning of June 14- and asked her mother for a loan of £150, with which to pay the hotel bill. Witness admitted that defendant showed ■ her a receipted bill for £79 in respect of the Hotel Metropole, Brighton, and anothers settled account of guineas : for a flat- in Cannon Court, Brighton. -> "Is it not Awlnl?" Percy Leslie Foote, house physician at the Royal Hospital, Portsmouth, said that before his mother arrived he received a * ' draft for her money and paid it into his "• bank. After he received the telephone ' message from his lister on June 14, he went ta Hampstead. Defendant said to him, "Is it not awful?" and suggested that her relations were responsible for the robbery. They were trying to do her out of the property. Sir. Plowden: Did she suggest they had <- ; hired a burglar No, we did not pursue that line of conversation. On July 15 defendant wrote him stating that she had been quite unable to obtain the money, but she would do her best to repay it" On August 6 he went with his mother to Clapham where they - saw the defendant and her husband. He told defendant that he had received certain information, and asked for an explanation. Previously he had written her intimating that the matter might have to go into Court. The defendant said to him at Clapham, "I wish you would take me into Court, because it would clear up matters." Mr. Plowden: Then are these proceedings taken to oblige the defendant ?—Not exactly. I do not think she meant this Court.

• Hard Pushed for Money. When in defendant's house at Clapham * his mother pointed to some ornaments and " said, " You told me they were stolen in the second robbery." Defendant replied, "I admit there was no second robbery. I have told you a lie. I was hard pushed, " and had to get it somehow." Cross-examined, witness said that defendant told him if they kept quiet they would get the money back. The most pressing statement which induced him to / agree to the loan was the alleged robbery. Defendant gave him a receipt for the loan, making the money repayable by Mr. Paine on the Bank of England.

* May Hallett as a Girl. Miss Annie vender, Police Court Missionary at Reigate, said the defendant was 23 years of age last June. She first knew her in January, 1905. Her father was Thomas Richard Hallett, and her name was Ethel Slay, but she was generally called May. There were three younger sisters. They lived in a nice villa in Horley, and kept one servant. The mother died when defendant was a young girl, and the father died in November, 1906. Defendant went abroad in 1908. Up to that time she was under the care of her aunt, Miss King. Defendant benefited under her father s will, and received some £1100 under her grand-uncle's will in July, 1909. So fai as witness knew the defendant had no other expectations in Horley. Mr Plowden recalled Mrs. Foote, and asked": At : the time you advanced this money you were on friendly terms?— Yes. ' < ' ■■ . . You now appear against her with considerable reluctance 1 Yes. Would you have lent her money merely to pay an hotel bill?— No. It was the story of the robbery that worked on your mind ?—Yes.

A Disputed Legacy. <£ Mr Osborn, who appeared for the defendant, submitted that no case had been made oil on which the defendant could be committed for trial. He did not dispute that defendant had made foolish and Sculons statements, but to™- ' with the intention of committing fraud. She borrowed the money to pay a, debt, one SEES/M but incurred .a She discharged her aep*» vuv -' 1 ' her grand-nncle s will, { & > " been properly pa d over, by Mr. -Blytliej, ' sEHo„aed titled participate the property AU she expected was £500, not <* Defendant's Version. *X':- ! Mrs Campbell entered the witness-box, - JVics. i P Tif- n«hnrn said she mar- - about her affaire at H ?- , A

the boat on April 13, and became on friendly terms with Mrs. Foote, her daughter, and niece. She told Mrs. Foote that her father's name was Thomas Richard Hallett, of Horley. She denied that she said ho was Lord Chief Justice of England, but she remembered saying he was a justice of the peace. Mr. Plowden: That is . a tremendous drop! Defendant, told Mrs. Foole that she was going to Horley to take over her own home. Her two aunts, Miss King and Mrs. Hallett, met her at the boat, and she introduced them to Mrs. Foote. She further gave Mrs. Foote the address of Miss King, where letters would always find her. On landing, defendant, with her husband and nurse and child, went to the Hotel Victoria, Northumberland Avenue, and Mrs. Foote, with her daugh ter and niece, were her guests for one day. Afterwards witness left for Brighton.

Mr. Osborn: How did they know you had gone to Brighton We telephoned each other. Mr. Plowden: Did they want to find you, or you find them ?— think it. was mutual. The Robbery. Defendant, continuing, said that after the motor drive they all returned to her room, and it was then that the robbery was discovered. She notified the hotel manager and local police at once. The following day, on their way through Horley, she pointed out her home, her uncle's house, and the Gatwick racecourse, but she never said" that her family owned the racecourse. Neither had she said that Mr. Bottomley trained horses for her. Mr. Osborn: How did Mr. Bottomley's name come to be mentioned ?—An important case in which Mr. Bottomley was interested, was pending. Mrs. Foote asked me about him, and I told her what I knew. I also said he was a trainer. Defendant stoutly denied that she ever mentioned anything about a second robbery. She went to Hampstead' and asked Mrs. Foote for a loan in order to pay the hotel bill. Mrs. Foote replied that she would be unable to do anything until she had seen her son. The loan was made on June 14, and she was arrested on August 16. She wrote the receipt, putting in Mr. Paine's name because she thought he managed her great-uncle's estate. Dr. Foote asked her what she wanted the money for. and she replied to pay her hotel till.

Sir. Plowden: Did you ever admit to Mrs. Foote, at Clapham, that you were wrong in saying there had been a second robbery ?—No. Mrs. Foote must have misunderstood me. Mrs. Foote wanted the money repaid, and I made various untrue statements to her, but I never sug gested a second robbery. On August 6 she received a letter from Mrs. Foote's solicitors asking for an explanation, and threatening proceedings. She replied that the money was borrowed from Dr. Foote, and not from Mrs. Foote, and that she would pay it back in a few weeks. - . May Hallett in New Zealand. In 1909, defendant stated, she consulted Messrs. Field, Luckie, and Toogood, _of Wellington, for the purpose of obtaining money from Messrs. Pain, Blythe, and Constable, and later on she received from £300 to £400. She expected more, and so she came to England. • She also-be-lieved she was entitled to property under her father's will. Defendant said she told Mrs. Foote she expected to get £500 —not £500 a week. Never at any time did she make false statements to Mrs. Foote for the purpose of obtaining money. Cross-examined by Mr. Paley Scott (for the prosecution): What (fid* you expect from your father's property Some money. What did you hope for ? Mr. Plowden: There is no limit to hope. (Laughter.) Defendant stated that .she expected more money in New Zealand than she received. Mr. Scott put it to defendant that she anticipated her expectations by borrowing money, and then when her share fell due, these borrowed amounts were repaid. Defendant would not admit this, but she admitted her signature to one mortgage of reversion under the will of her great-uncle, made out to Mr. Edward Casper, of Melbourne, for £50. . , Mr. Scott: You became friendly with the Footes?— they were, perhaps, the best people on board. Did you think they were in pretty good circumstances ?—-No, but they had a yacht and a motor car. At any rate, you knew they were comfortably "off ?—ln New Zealand everybody owns yachts and motor can. . Further cross-examined by Sir. Scott, defendant denied all the statements which the prosecution attributed to her. The Magistrate's Comments. .

Mr. Plow den said it must be admitted that the substance in this case rested upon very insecure ' foundations. The whole of it might be said to rest upon conversation which took place at different times between three. ladies, beginning some weeks ago, and upon the memories of each of those three. Nobody could say that was a sure foundation. He did not question for one moment that Mrs. Foote., and Miss Foote had told that Court what they honestly believed defendant said to them. He saw no very great distinction between the two stories told by the two parties. It was quite as likely that the defendant said she expected to get £500. as £500. a week, that the justice and Lord Chief Justice story was also explainable. The ladies struck up a fast and furious friendship on board ship, and on landing they accepted the defendant's hospitality. t In his opinion the money was advanced as an unconditional loan for an indefinite period. The friendship of the ladies, however, was so brittle that within a fortnight Mrs. Fooie was trying to get the money paid back. Her suspicions had been aroused through seeing some ornaments, or jewellery, at Clapham. The whole question could not have been better put than by the defendant in one of her letters when she said : "I borrowed this money with the intention of repaying it." It was not denied that part of it was used to pay the hotel bill, but the question was whether when the defendant obtained the money she meant to repay it or appropriate it for her own uses. Although he had grave doubts about it, he thought in the interests of justice he was taking the wiser course in allowing that one point to be decided by a jury— was defendant's intention when she obtained the loan ? , . Defendant was then committed for trial at the North London Sessions, bail being allowed in one surety of £50 or two of £25.

CAREER IN NEW ZEALAND. appearances IN COURT. May Hallet first loomed into prominence in* New Zealand, when under the name of Mav Curtin she was charged before Mr. C C. Kettle in April, 1908, with the theft of several articles of jewellery. A plea of guilty was entered in respect to some of the charges, and a pitiful etory was told on her behalf as to how she came to New Waland in December, 1907, under contract as a lady help to an Auckland lady. On the voyage out, it was stated, she met a fellow-emigrant, who induced her to live with him as his wife, and this was the cause of all her trouble. Eventually the magistrate discharged the accused on a lady and gentleman entering into a bond of £50 that they would provide her with maintenance and protect her for six months without remuneration. . ,_, Before the six months had expired May Hallett was brought before the Cambridge Police Court and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for obtaining board and lodgings at the National Hotel for herself and maid by false pretences. The maid had been induced to go with the accused by the latter representing she was the Hon. Miss Collard. r/ . J Continuing her career in New Zealand, May Hallett was next heard of in Wellington, where it was stated ehe represented that she was a relative of a person moving in high society at Home, and she was alleged to have victimised several prominent Wellington people. Eventually she found herself in the Wellington Police Court, where she was acquitted m May, 1909, on charges of obtaining money by false' pretences-