FALSE REPRESENTATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3899, 4 December 1928, Page 9

FALSE REPRESENTATION.

A REMARKABLE CASE. MAN AND WOMAN HEAVILY FINED. CHRISTCHURCH, November 27. A strange case was before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day when Sybil Louisa Penberthy and Valentine Abraham Beaumont were charged that on. October 27, 1928, they did obtain money by imposing on Arthur James Inkster with a false representation. The story told by Inkster was that he was a hairdresser and the female accused, whom he knew well, came to the tenement where he lodged to have her hair cut. This was done in his bedroom. The woman stayed only long enough for the cutting of her hair, and they parted on excellent terms, no impropriety having taken place. Bvaumont came to see him some time later and said that Penberthy was pregnant. He demanded £2O for an illegal operation. Inkster had not the money, but after repeated requests, gave him £s—his wages for that week. He was so worried by Beaumont’s demands that he attempted to commit suicide. A statement by the accused Penberthy was read in which she stated that Inkster grappled with her in his bedroom but nothing came of it. She wished to frighten Inkster and suggested that Beaumont should tell him that she was pregnant and endeavour to get some money out of him for an illegal operation. She was not, in fact, pregnant, and no arrangements had been made for such an operation.

Beaumont, in a statement to the police, said he believed that Penberthy was pregnant and had seen Inkster on her behalf. The magistrate said Ire did not consider the case one of deliberate blackmail, but it had approached very close to it, and had serious consequences as Inkster hsd attempted to commit suicide owing to worry. The woman was a neurotic, but it was incomprehensible that Beaumont had been such an easy tool. If Ire thought it was deliberate blackmail both the accused would be sent to prison in spite of the woman’s delicate health. The woman was the worst offender, and he had little sympathy with her. Penberthy was fined £lO, in default one month’s imprisonment, and Beaumont, was fined £5. An application for the suppression of the nairres was refused.