SLEUTH SPIES ON BOARDER WITH OXFORD ACCENT

NZ Truth, Issue 1175, 7 June 1928, Page 7

SLEUTH SPIES ON BOARDER WITH OXFORD ACCENT

What Harley Discovered In Bedroom Raid

Wife Repudiates Liaison With Mystery Man

PRIMATE'S RELATIVE SHARPLY REBUKED BY JUDGE BLAIR

miIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiniIIII AS it 'happened, Roderick Willoughby Goret-Edwards was Judge Blair's '; first problem m the Harley matrimonial fracture. Had this man toeen served with the i necessary papers, citing him m the name of Richard Edwards as co- , respondent m the proceedings? j Not "only was his honor asked" to disi cover. , whether Roddy had received an invitation to be present officially at the court to hear and refute the allegations made .against, him by Henry Harley, but he was also requested to' determine whether Richard Edwards, cited m the papers as the co-respondent, wa^s the same man as -Roderick Willoughby GoreAEdwards— hyphen and all. I Lawyer told his honor that i , the claim for damages against the coj respondent had .been ; withdrawn to enj able the case to be brought before a ; judge alone. i There wias no appearance of the coj respondent- in the proceedings and he • was npt'represented by counsel. Later, though, Mrs. Harley— after a whispered word from her counsel, Lawyer Osburn Lilly — left the court, to return a few oiinutes later with a six-foot specimen of young and virile manhood. There' was something m the nature of ft mystery about the co-respondent, Lawyer Lilly Informed the court. Counsel said he would like a description of the person said to have been served with the papers; His client knew only one man named Edwards and this individual stated that he had not been served. Lawyer Schramm's answer to his learned friend was to place Frederick Jackson m the witness-box.

Undersized and somewhat nondescript m appearance, Jackson enlightened the court on the manner m which he earned a crust. Private inquiry agent, he designated, himself; assistant to Lawrence Potter, who needs no introduction to "Truth readers. ' Standing firmly m his sandshoes, Jackson revealed how he spent a few days round about November 7, at Mrs. Harley's boarding-house m "Waihi. The co-respondent, who had opened the door to him when he went to Mrs. Harley's for a room, he knew well. He had seen him two or three days before December 19, 1927, m Auckland.

Wheji he set out to serve the papers on Edwards on December 19, he decided that the best place to find his man was m one of the hotels. _ His quarry was run to earth m the first hotel he entered and m the public bar he handed Edwards, the man whom he now identified m court, fois invitation to be present.. Edwards had made only one comment when served. "You have been spying mmy house," he stated. "I have a good mind to knock your head off." Lawyer Lilly took a hand m the argument at this stage. Under crossexamination, Jackson described the man he had served with the papers as being about six feet m height, with shoulders slightly stooped, dressed m a brown suit '-with grey .cap. Lawyer Lilly: "This man will say you are a deliberate liar!" Frederick (stolidly): "I can't help what he says. I know he is the man." "This man says he .is not Richard Edwards," Lawyer Lilly declared. "I can prove he is — or, at any rate, that he has used that name," retorted Lawyer Schramm. Lawyer Lilly, turning to the six-foot new arrival who had followed Mrs. Harley into- court, invited him to grace the witness-box.

' " ' iiiii!iiii[i'mMmiiiui'i!(u'imiumi!i![iaiiillllll iiHiiimlMiMiiiinl'iiii'immiimmiiii'iiml'liii'iiiiiiiiiiii'mi'limlimmiumiiiii imimimium iiimimitmiiiiimmimuuimiumimumtmiiMitiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiimmiii iniiiimiig |< i "■ (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) . II II ACCUSED OF AN ILLICIT LIAISON with a man not half her age, stated to be the nephew of Archbishop (I [I Gore-Edwards, of Wales, Mary Harley, a Waihi wife and mother, proprietress of a boarding-house, flung the allega- || fj tion back m the teeth of her husband m the Auckland Supreme Court and fought doggedly to prove her |[ (I innocence. "They are all liars !" she cried, with passionate emotion as she denounced the witnesses for her \\ [| husband, Henry Harley. - ; II (I The sensational features of the proceedings were, firstly, the denial by the co-respondent, cited as Richard (| 1| Edwards and correctly known as Roderick Willoughby Gore-Edwards, that he had been served with the papers; (I II and, secondly, the emphatic denial by the respondent that Private Inquiry Agent J. L Potter and her husband had |J f s raided her room, finding her m a compromising situation with her alleged paramour. || I H I II \ U | I H 1117

The question was most unfair, he considered, slightly accentuating his Oxford accent and registering indignation. Very carefully, as though endeavoring to expain to a child, his honor said: "I am afraid, Mr. Edwards, I am the judge as to whether the question is fair. Please answer it!" The question being repeated, Roderick voiced his further protest, though less aggressively. "That is rather a terrific question to' ask. It would require about 40 reams of paper to work it out." Lawyer Schramm (shifting liis point of attack): "Have you been living at Mrs. Harley's since January this year?" "Witness (suavely, but indefinitely) : "I believe I have been there." His Honor (impatiently): "Never mind about believing. Be more explicit!" ' Roddy's idea of complying with the request was to announce: "I can safely say I was there." Judge Blair sharply took the witness to task for the manner m which he was giving liis evidence. He declared that witness would not be allowed to "attempt to blind the court." . It was absurd for him to say he could not remember where he had been m January and whether it was at Waihi. "Be definite," advised his honor with caustic 'emphasis., "Stupid, vague references are ridiculous. Either a thing is a fact or it is not. "Why not tell counsel where you were and why? You 'believe' and you can 'safely say' are not accurate enoug-h for this court. Much subdued, witness admitted that he had boarded with Mrs. Harley at various times since 1926. Lawyer Schramm: % 'Have you ever called yourself Richard Edwards?" .Roderick "didn't think so." However, he was earnestly requested by counsel to "come to the point," where-, upon *he remembered, that some people called him "Dick," but Mrs. Harley had always called him "Roderick" or "Mr. Edwards." The two Hartley boys called him "Roddy" or "Roger/ 1 "I hold that this man was served," was his honor's terse decision. Roddy faded temporarily into the background of court activity, though he was fated to loom large m the public eye as the case proceeded. Henry Harley, a thin man with a pinched look about his face and an expression m his eyes indicating that he was inwardly consumed by the /raging fires of an internal emotion, commenced his story.

They were married at Waihi on September 28, 1914,-he said. Until Christmas, 1925, they had lived together; then his wife left him.

Roddy, evidently a fanatical believer m that famous old adage, "Keep your gate shut," said nothing as hard as he could.

Finding it difficult to keep the conversational ball rolling, Henry effected* a. retirement m good order, with his chief sleuth m attendance.

Selecting the post office as a position of strategic importance, since it commanded a view of the Harley boarding establishment, Henry and Sleuth Potter wiled away the golden moments m rapt contemplation of the hash -house.

Their patience was rewarded when they saw Edwards leave the house and stroll into the picture theatre nearby.

When he married Mary, said Henry, she was then divorced from. her husband, a gentleman named Booth.

Before her marriage to him she had kept his house m order and there had been a child born m 1909.

"It took you quite a long time to marry her then — 1909 to 1914?" queried Lawyer Osburn Lilly, conversationally.

"Don't you think.it was a pity I ever married, her?" retorted Henry,

not to be outdone m the matter of repartee.

Lawyer Lilly: "I put it to you— Mrs. Harley was not divorced until 1911, two years after that child was born?"

Henry did not know about that. He denied that the order for maintenance was made on the grounds of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain. "There is not a lazy bone m my body," he declared. ■

He had merely signed the maintenance order after agreeing to contribute the sum stated .therein. He was not guilty of the allegation.

"Well known to bench, bar and public, James Lawrence Potter, private slexith, of Auckland, conducted himself m the witness-box as is usual with him.

A perfect poise, of composed selfpossession combined with. an air which almost says: "This hurts me more than it does you" sort of thing, makes' James a very impressive figure.

There was no blaring of trumpets or crashing of drums, from all accounts, when James arrived on the job at Waihi on November 1, 1928. He came, he saw and— in his 'umble opinion — he conquered.

AIL that Henry -and he had heard and seen on the night of November 7, he told the court.

Under cross-examination, the sleuth said that when the door was opened, the Archbishop of Wales' nephew was well and truly compromised, though James was disrespectful enough to allude to him as Edwards.

"Oh, yes," Sleuth Potter admitted later. "He could have been sitting on the bed." ■. \ .

Harry Harley, eldest son of the petitioner and. respondent, did not look particularly ; happy as he drifted into the ■witness-box.:, • ' '

His age, he said, was 19 and he had

lived with his mother at Waihi until about four months ago. s

Edwards he knew as "Dick" Edwards, who called his mother "Mum."

He had seen Edwards talking to his mother m her room nearly every night. In fact, the co-respondent was continually "m and out" of Mrs. Harley's room during the two years he had stayed at the house with occasional absences.

Lawyer Lilly: "Do you remember that on one occasion your mother was so ill you had to get Edwards to help you change the mattress?"

Harry failed to recollect the episode

Lawyer Lilly: Did you ever see any impropriety between your mother and Edwards? — No..

Did you ever see anything that would lead you to believe that your mother was not doing th*e : right thing? — Well, he was m the bedroom; that is all I know — that was at night.

"But .! he always came back to the room he was sharing with you? I suggest that it was always early m the evening when he -was m your mother's room?"

1 1 1 1 rlin mll t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 v 1 1 1 1 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) m 1 1 1 1 ii n:t 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 jllmllmi ii 1 1 ri 1 1 1 1 1 1 m

To which witness replied, that he had seen Edwards m the room about 10 o'clock at night . . . and, earlier.

"Mrs. Harley. told me she did not mind. her. husband getting a divorce so long as he did not put the dirt m," announced Robert Graham, a Waihi miner.

A>outh, named Frank Quintal, whose usual occupation is assistant m a Waihi fish shop, went searching for Harry Harley one night, lie told the court. .

His expedition ended m the discovery of two beds on the verandah; Edwards, was m one, while Mrs. Harley. peeped coyly at him from the other. That was Quintal's version; .aftyway.. He departed m haste and informed Harley senior of the shock he had sustained. '

. The diminutive Frederick Jackson, recalled to give his testimony on relations existing between Roderick GoreEdwards and his landlady, Mrs. Harley, padded softly through the court to the witness-box. , .

Unlike most sleuths, Fred apparently believed m wearing 'rubber sandshoes, even when not actively engaged m an investigation-through the keyhole or per medium of the window. . '■-„'.'

He couldn't possibly be mistaken m his identification of Edwards, he said. When he went to Mrs. Harley's house to engage a, room, the co-respondent opened the door. Edwards had said : "My wife is m bed with a very bad cold." ■ ...

Not to be outdone m a display of human feeling, Frederick then said:

"Some hpt whisky would do her

good."

Later he procured the whisky and— after he and .Edwards had lowered : the contents of the bottle :by ona ,or two

nips — a hot toddy was made for Mrs, Harley.

"I saw Edward take it into the bedroom," added Frederick the sleuth, "but I don't know whether Mrs. Harley got the whisky."

The suspicious nature of a sleuth even compelled Fred to give expression to the thought that the nephew of the Archbishop of Wales had annexed the hot whisky himself! '

If any reliance can be placed on Fred Jackson's, evidence, then Edwards was continually m and out Mrs. Harley's room during the two or three days witness stayed at the boarding-house.

Sometimes he would remain with her" a quarter of an hour; sometimes longer.

Under cross-examination, witness admitted that the whole of the time' he was staying In the house, Mrs, Harley had not left her room.

Later that night, after Henry's dramatic raid and denouncement, witness had a drink with Edwards m the kitchen.

There are no flies on Frederick. "Always busy as the little bee", is apparently his motto.

A somewhat stolid-looking Dalmatian, who gave the name of George Zanimovich, said lie was a. miner arid had boarded at Mrs. Harley's m Waihi.

One morning, when he was returning home from work about 6.30 a.m., he was passing the open door of a bedroom. He noticed Mrs. Harley and Edwards together — asleep.

He saw the same thing on other occasions. Respondent and co-respon-dent had had all their meals m this room for about a week, stated witness.

"If anybody try to hide anything- from me I get inquisitive," he added — to everybody's amusement. Lawyer Schramm: Did you eyßr complain about this conduct to anyone? — No, it was none of my business. Counsel: "You did not want to spoil the fun, eh?" . . Witness (a large smile dividing • his features): "Oh, no; 1 did not want to spoil the fun. I would not spoil anybody's fun. I am fond of a little fun myself!". These sentiments invoked much merriment m court. "That man has said you ought to have been the co-respondent. Don't you consider you are a ' lucky man ?'.' queried Lawyer Lilly, waving an arm around the courtroom. Just to whom he referred was not clear. ' "I could say you. might have been," witness flashed back — and again the court resounded with laughter. . •: "Yes, you might," agreed Lawyer Lilly, whimsically, "except this — I am not living m Waihi." " "Witness: "I was!" Counsel: "Yes— you were." "Witness: "I have my own wife . . . and I respect her and my children.

Henry, according to his wife, had made life miserable and unbearable for her, to such an extent that she had suffered a. nervous breakdown. "While the maintenance -case -was m court he made the allegation against me," declared witness, "that I was living m the boarding-house with seven men." Cross-examined by Lawyer Schramm, Mary said that Edwards had come to her house first m October, 1926. "Has he always paid you for'your room?" asked counsel. "Yes, always." Asked to produce her book recording all boarders and the dates of arrival and departures, as well as payments, Mrs. Harley was only able to point out one instance where the name of the co-respandentj Edwards, appeared. That was the date he arrived there.

She explained this by stating that she had probably included Edwards as ''a casual" and he would not show under his name. People who did not stay longer than one week she classed as 1 "casuals." "

She was not prepared to swear that Edwards had never stayed longer than one week at any given period.

Respondent admitted that she .could not show one single entry m her book showing Edwards as a casual from November 4 to November .8, 1927. She might have forgotten to put it down, though. ■-.....

Lawyer Schramm: Do. you /know that Edwards is a' married man?— No, and I do not think he is married.

You know he is an Oxford University man?— W ell > he might be. ;

Has. he told you that? — I do not remember.

Has !he told you that he is a nephew of Archbishop Gore-Edwards, of "Wales? — I don't remember him telling me that, but if he had drink In him at the time he would tell me anything.

Has he asked you not to contest this

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiliiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiminu ,■

Tour answer to all these charges Js „> that all these witnesses who have givenevidence here to-day are lying? Was -? Jackson lying? — He is an absolute liar! * What about Harley?— -He is the biggest liar of them all. He was never m my house that night. And what of Mr. Potter? — He is a liar, toe. I have never seen him m my life. It is a wonder he does not drop dead after coming here and saying what he has said today; ■■'... • .■''■'■-.. ' ■ * ' She was not prepared to say that her son, Harry, had committed perjury. She ' believed that lie had, been led astray by "her husband, who, she icnew — and ' could proy.e— had given the boy 50 v^ acres of grass land and £ 3 per week -' jto induce him to come to court and " give evidence against her. The 'boy, \v Quintal, was also a liar. v Respondent, , directing her attention once more to 'Zanimpvich, declared that he, too,, was an absolute liar. Was it likely that any decent woman would do what 1 he declared she L had .done? '■••• Anyway, would she have left 4 her bedroom door open? " Lawyer Schramm: Is it not possible -', that yoii were m a good, sound sleep? ' .•> —Do you think it possible that I would ./ go to sleep with my door open when "' this man I—witness1 — witness flung a fierce glance , at petitioner — was threatening my - life? I would not leave mj self open to ' him to get anything on ;me like that{ This concluded respondent's testimony and an adjournment was granted until this week. ll Lawyer Lilly intimated that it was his intension to place the co-respondent "" m. the witness-box.