ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20875, 15 November 1929, Page 10

ELSIE WALKER MYSTERY,

MR COONEY’S CHALLENGE,

REPLY BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE,

(Special to Daily Times.) WELLINGTON, November 14. A reply was made to-dav by the Minister of Justice (Mr T, M. Wilford) to the challenge of Mr Cooney, of Te Puke, to prosecute Mrs Margaret Thomason for alleged blackmail in connection with an incident arising out of the Elsie Walker murder mystery. The challenge was made by Mr Cooney on Monday last, the text of his statement being published ou Tuesday.

“ While I have not the police files in front of me. some of which arc in Auckland, and consequently cannot reply to the whole of Mr Cooney’s statements,’ - said the Minister, “ I feel that I should not wait in replying to his challenge. Mr Cooney issues a challenge to me to prosecute Mrs Thomason for alleged attempted blackmail (under, of course, the proper section of the Crimes Act). I can hardly believe that Mr Cooney is serious. The word ‘ blackmail ’ does not appear in the whole of my statement. “ I will requote from my statement the only passage upon which I think Mr Gooncy can rely for his ridiculous challenge. Here is the quotation: ‘By arrangement she (i.e., Mrs Bayly) then went to Wanganui, where, according to Mrs Bayly, Mrs Thomason asked from Mrs Bayly a large sum of money. Although Mrs Thomason denies to the police making any demand for money, it is significant that she names exactly the same sum of money mentioned by Mrs Bayly—namely, £IO,OOO as being discussed between them. It is quite clear that at this interview the payment of money was discussed between the women.’

“That must be the excerpt from the statement made by me upon which Mr Cooney challenges me to prosecute Mrs Thomason for blackmail, There is no other that could possibly apply to it. Mr Cooney, dropping all the discussion on the discrepancy between the statements made by Mrs Thomason and Airs Laugdon. fastens on to the paragraph mentioned above and says: ‘ I challenge the Minister of Justice to prosecute Mrs Thomason for blackmail/ Surely Mr Cooney knows as a lawyer that there is no evidence which would justify such a proceeding. I can hardly believe that he is not aware of that. " In conclusion. I would like to ask Mr Cooney, as Mrs Thomason admitted mentioning a sum of £IO,OOO as being the amount discussed between herself and Mrs Bayly, what were they talking about? ” An answer to this question will no doubt clear the ground and show the absurdity of the suggestion that any prosecution could possibly be taken against Mrs Thomason for any breach of the law of the land.