EXTORTION OF MONEY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20629, 30 July 1930, Page 14

EXTORTION OF MONEY.

THREATS MADE TO MAN.

TALK OF " THE SOCIETY."

VERDICT OF GUILTY RETURNED. RIDER ADDED TO FINDING. Oft'ences alleged to have Won committed over two years ago formed the basis of a scries of charges relating to extortion of money by threats, which were inado against Gordon McKcnna, alias George McWilliams, in the Supremo Court yester day before Mr. Justice Smith. Threo charges related to the same set of cir cumslances mi April 13, 1928. McKenna was alleged to have, with menaces, domandod £6O from Hugh Gilmer, with intent to steal, to have stolen £4O from Gilmer and to havo assaulted Gilmer. A fourth charge was that on April 28, 1928, with menaces, ho demanded from Gilmer £2O, with intent to steal. Mr. Hubble appeared for the Crown. Mr. Noble represented the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hubble said evidence would bo given that as the result of threats Gilmer parted with £4O, which was all he had in tho hnuso at the time. On the later date accused returned with another man to demand another £2O, making the £6O which ho had originally demanded. The circumstances were unusual and tho jury might conclude that Gilmer had been rather weak in being frightened by accused and paying over tho money. Although the warrant had been issued just after tho events alleged, no trace had been found of tho- accused until ho was recognised in Queen Street and arrested by Detective-Sergeant McHugh and Detective Xaldcr on May 17 last. Complainant's Evidence.

Hugh Gilmer said (hat in April, 1928, ho was living with his father in Albion Road, I'ainell. While standing near the Nelson Street Wharf at about 8 p.m.* on April 13 lio was approached by the accused und they entered into conversation. They had supper, at accuscd'3 suggestion, and witness paid because accused said he had no money. Accused suggested accompanying witness to the latter's home, arid lie permitted this. After having somo beer and wino there accused refused to go away. Ho said ho knew there was money in the house, and that he meant to have it. Ho seized a beer bottle and brandished it over witness' head. Witness said his fathor was in tho house, but ho did not call him, as he was not strong.

Witness said accused demanded £6O. Witness gave him £4O, which was in his bedroom, and accused said he would return for tho balance. On April 28 a man named Stewart tamo to the house and said McWilliams (the name accused had given") had sent him for the money. Witness re-fused to give it, and then accused came to the door. Accused said he was getting into hot water with " the society " about the money and must have at least, part of it in order " to keep the society sweet." Witness did not know what he was referring to. His father arrived home then and the men went away. Arrest of the Accused. Robert Gilmer, father of the previous witness, said the accused called at his house and made allegations against his son after Stewart had been arrested. On learning from his son what had taken place ho informed tho police. Detective-Sergeant Mcliugli and Detective Xaider gave evidence relating to tho arrest of accused, who at first denied that he was the man they wanted. When told to the property sheet at the police station with his correct name he signed "G. McKenna." Mr. Noble said this was ono of the most extraordinary cases which ho had known to come before the Court in this country. It was for tho jury to say whether the true story had been told in evidence, or whether there was something else which the young man laying the complaint wished to conceal. He asked why tho father had not been informed until some days afterwards. The defence was that Gilmer had not been threatened, but had made a bargain with McKenna to pay him a certain sum in return for his silence. Statement From tho Dock. •

Tho accused, in .1 statement, from the dock, alleged that Gilmer made the first advances which led to their acquaintance, lie described at length the events of the night of April 13. He said Gilmer gave him drink in the city and also after taking him home, where he was invited to stay tho night and went to bed. He alleged that because of an occurrence after he had gone to sleep Gilmer offered him £6O if ho would keep quiot. 110 was given £4O then and told that he could )iuve tho balanco a fortnight later. 110 denied using threats, causing Gilmer to be afraid. His Honor s.id the statement mado by the prisoner was in the nature of a theory such as might he put forward by counsel in his'address. The only evidence was that given from tho witness box. The defenco was a criticism of that evidence, aimed at showing that, although sworn, it could not bo .true. It was for tho jury to decido whether, in the light of tiie criticism, they did or did .not accept the sworn evidence. Aftei a retirement of an hour tho jury returned with a verdict of guilty on oil counts, adding a rider that indiscretion on tin; pa it of Gilmer had been a contributing factor. His Honor, speaking to tho jury, said that their recommendation would certainly be taken into account when seutenco was being passed. McKenua was remanded for sentence until the close of tho criminal sessions.