THE WAKEFORD CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18334, 26 February 1923, Page 7

THE WAKEFORD CASE.

COMMITTEE OF DEFENCE. A. and N.Z. LONDON. Feb. 23. The Central -News Agency is - officially informed that a committee of;: clergy JB;; assisting in the defence ;of Archdeacon; Wakeford. The re-conscituted and en- \ I larged committee has announced -that the.; girl Wakeford met in the Peterborough \ Cathedral has' been found, and Offers to give evidence. ! ; v ' ,: : •.-''*-.■'/,? /'v'vV' '* -'A*'J './ : , The Rev. John Wakeford, who -was canon - and precentor of t Lincoln Cathedral, , archdeacon of 'Stow, and vicar s of t ..; Kirk3tead, was tried 'by the Consistory Court of the Diocese, of H ; Lincoln on %*\ / % charge of immoral conduct, *'?. and\fwJ,«ld>;,:■■ guilty. ; The charge against ;■ the arck--deacon was that he stayed; at the Bull; , Hotel, Peterborough, oil March ;14 and : 15, and on Good' Friday, April 2, 1920,;; with a woman who was not his wife. The, archdeacon appealed against - the judgment of ': the ' Consistory Court to the / Privy Council ■■ in/April, 1921, but? his appeal was dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Shaw, with whom the Bishops of London, Gloucester, Rochester, and Ely sat as his assessors. One of the main point* for the prosecution was an entry in the hotel book, J. Wakeford and wife, which was alleged -.;i to be in the archdeacon's handwriting. J . „ • /l; ~ „ In' the judgment of the Judicial Committee; of the Privy Council,: the evidence for the prosecution was. described, as .a mosaic of statements made; by .a great number of persons, each of whonvcan , ; only speak of particular moments'and of ; particular instances." The defence was that of conspiracy and- mistake., The archdeacon asserted that he had incurred the enmity of two clergymen,one of .them,. his brother-in-law, :. and his ■•;' case was;|, ;- largely that they had ■ resolved to. hound .' him out of the Church. To support, that „ s theory it was , necessary to show not only \ that the manager of the;hotel.; and v his/; * wife and the servants were implicated, but that many other .witnesses also, who ;.*• ' could not have been interested, one. way /.'•■', or the other. The. Judicial Committee" of the Privy Council found that there, was no evidence of corruption to maintain.the defence of conspiracy, *-'. '•;<■ ,/' - In April last' a■- petition V for the 're-/ • / opening -of ■, the "ease,: signed by ' 60,000 '/ ! C« people, was submitted to the Home 1 Office ' without success. •r ,'■ ... ' '.'■■■ ■;,.-., ■■;., i . '••-' '•;-■;■ '''r^;\.%-;rtx>%!rr;?&,::-£ i. . - :... ■.■■:•.... "• »:k :.:.;«..