CHARGE OF BLACKMAIL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22716, 31 October 1935, Page 13

CHARGE OF BLACKMAIL

MEGGETT FOUND GUILTY JUDGE'S PERTINENT COMMENT The charge against John Albert Meggett of blackmailing Herbert Frederick Sincock was concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday. Meggett was charged that on or about March 21, 1935, at Dunedin, with, menaces, he demanded money .from Herbert Frederick Sincock with intent to steal it. Three other charges 01 a similar nature related to menaces alleged to have been made on April 2, April 17 and September 12. Meggett was represented by Mr C. J. L. White. Mr White, in addressing the jury, said that he would not attempt to justify in any way the action of the accused in sending the letters tq Mr Sincock. The matter they were there to try was not whether or not Meggett had been a fool, or whether or not Mr Sincock had been guilty of immorality with Mrs Meggett. That wasino concern of the trial at all. The jury were there with the one purpose —to inquire whether Meggett was a criminal —that was, whether he had criminal intent. The jury had also to ascertain whether, if there was criminal intent, Meggett was a criminal blackmailer. Counsel said that the jury had to ascertain what Meggett's intentions were at the time the letters were written. The whole of his address would be directed solely to that end —to endeavour to ascertain what was in the accused's mind. They would be told by his Honor that the whole crux of the case hedged round the question of the intention of Meggett to steal with menaces. It must be proved that there was a demand for money, and that it was accompanied by a menace or threat, and, moreover, that it was accompanied by a menace or threat in definite and unequivocal language. It must also be proved that there was the intention to steal. The intention to steal was very vital to the case they were considering. Counsel referred to the methods of a secret blackmailer, and asked if those adopted by Meggett were those usually associated with the blackmailer. Was*Meggett a blackmailer or a jealous husband suffering under a sense of intense emotion? Counsel read extracts from the letters written by Meggett to Mr Sincock, and referred to the relations between Mr Sincock and Mrs Meggett. He held that Meggett was suffering from intense jealousy —he was suffering from the cancer of jealousy eating into his very heart. Mr Sincock had brought down the whole trouble on his head by his foolish indiscretion. Had Meggett acted as a criminal? Would a blackmailer have put his name to the letters which had been written by Meggett to Mr Sincock and also supplied his address? Meggett was simply asking for compensation for the injury he considered „he was suffering from, not for money, when he had written the letters to Mr Sincock. Counsel emphasised the fact that Meggett had no secret methods when he had written letters to Mr Sincock in the most open manner, and had challenged him to do his worst. His Honor, summing up, said that there were four counts against the accused. On each one he was charged with menaces, demanding money, with aa attempt to steal—in popular language blackmail. The demand might be made in writing, or it might be made verbally, and in explicit terms, as, " Pay me money; if you don't I will accuse you of some crime." On the other hand it might be made in words which, although not explicit, might leave no doubt that in substance they were demands. The jury was entitled to look at the substance, and say whether or not there was a demand. His Honor explained the meaning of the word "menace" in the case. It might be a threat to injure one's person, to thrash him; to accuse one of some crime; to injure one's character; to accuse one of immorality—a threat to- injure one's position in. the community. It might be a threat of ' a kind to unsettle the mind of an ary person and induce him under the influence of fear or alarm to part with his money. The jury had to give a wide couimonsense meaning to the terms. It was not necessary that a threat should be successful to constitute a crime. His Honor reviewed the evidence and said that really could any person of fair mind say because Mr Sincock did not tell Mrs Meggett to tell her husband about the gift of a gramophone and that he paid the cartage for the machine that he was doing something improper? In that there was nothing which should excite suspicion in any ordinary man's mind—a mind not clouded with abnormal jealousy. There had been a stream of correspondence from the accused — offensive and abusive letters containing many allegations—letters in which the accused stated that he wonld drag Mr Sincock to the gutter. There was also mention of thrashing Mr Sincock. If they accepted Mr Sincock's evidence as being true there was not, and could not be, any reliable evidence of the association with Mr Sincock and Mrs Meggett which could be brought against Mr Sincock to his discredit. The accused had made a statement to the police that he knew he had been foolish and that he should not have written the letters he did. He had also said that he knew his wife was a good moral woman and that there was no evidence that she and Mr Sincock had been carrying on any immorality. Was the accused's statement to,Detective Doyle to be reconciled with the various other statements in "his letters? Had they or had they not contained not merely threats but allegations which the accused knew were untrue? The letters to Mr Sincock had covered a period from January to September. His Honor referred to the explanations which the accused wanted from Mr Sincock, and said that it had been suggested that they were merely a camouflaged way of saying that the accused wanted money. As regarded the constant ringing one night of Mr Sincock on the telephone, it might occur to the jury, was that the action of a man who genuinely wanted an explanation, or was it the conduct of a man who had. some purpose in his mind? The Crown' suggested that the accused really wanted money, and by his letters and his conduct was endeavouring to use the accused's own words to drive a thorn into Mr Sincock's side, digging deeper and deeper, until Mr Sincock was worn down by the pestering and annoyance and gave way to get peace. It had been put to the jury that the real explanation of the conduct of the accused was jealousy-—that his real intention was to obtain money as damages in a legitimate way, and that that was the explanation of liis conduct. Well, it perhaps might occur to the jury that, having that intention, why did not the accused take proceedings? Why write letters over some months? Why, in particular, should he spend a long period on one night ringing Mr Sincock up on the telephone? If he had wanted damages why, when Mr Sincock met him, did he act as he did? His Honor read extracts from the letters written by the accused and also referred to the postcards and said that it was for the jury to consider the letters and the other evidence. GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. The jury retired at a quarter past 12 and returned at a quarter past 1 with a verdict of guilty on all counts. The jury added the following rider: "We consider the accused was labouring under severe mental stress during the period covered by his letters." His Honor said: Prisoner at the Bar,

you are remanded in custody for sentenca at 10 o'clock to-morrow. His Honor continued: I think, however, I should not wait until I pass sentence to make this observation: Th« name of Mr'Sincock has been mentioned in these proceedings and in correspondence. I am satisfied that he acted with propriety and discretion and that th« derogatory statements in the correspondence are untrue in fact. There wag no foundation for them.