THREAT ALLEGED

Southland Times, Issue 22497, 6 December 1934, Page 6

THREAT ALLEGED

A SERIOUS CHARGE SURFACEMAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL FARMER’S EVIDENCE (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, December 5 A charge that on or about November 28, 1933, at Tahekeroa, 14 miles north of Helensville, he did accuse or threaten to accuse a local farmer of having indecently assaulted a girl with intent to extort or gain money, was preferred against Frederick George Harding, railway surfaceman of Tahekeroa, in the Helensville Police Court. The girl concerning whom the threat was alleged to have been made was the step-daughter of accused. Detective Murch prosecuted and Mr Noble appeared for accused who pleaded not guilty. . ~ ~ Complainant farmer m evidence said that the children and step-children of accused had frequented his farm almost from the time accused came to live at Tahekeroa three years ago. They had the run of the house and used to go in and out of every room. On November. 27 last year the stepdaughter of accused, whom he judged to be about 13, and his young son, came to the house. The girl asked if the boy could stay there for the day as her parents were going to town. She took 2/- from a table in his room and said she was going to keep it. He refused to let her, but said he would give it to her if she would take a box to the station for him. She went away with the box and he did not see her again that day. Shortly after dinner next day accused came to the house with the two children. In reply to questions by accused, witness said he had not interfered with the girl. Accused returned just after dark and said he wanted £5O or he would have him arrested. Witness told him he had not got the money and accused said £2O would do. Accused filled in a cheque (produced) for £2O and witness signed it. As accused had frightened him by his attitude, he went to see a lawyer subsequently and later accused told him he had seen his own and witness’s lawyer and he would let the matter drop. Witness had not put the matter in the hands of the police. Cross-examined by Mr Noble, witness said he had been frightened because accused told him he had four or five who would back him up. He did not offer him everything he had in the house if accused would not inform the police. , , . . , Detective Murch said he interviewed complainant and accused at Tahekeroa He produced a statement made by accused to the effect that following information from his wife he met his step-daughter and from remarks made by her he gathered that something indecent had occurred. He went with the two children to see complainant. He said he was going to ring the police and complainant said he would give him anything in the house if he did not, as it would kill his father and mother. He returned home and his wife would not let him ring the police on account of the girl having to appear in court. He returned to complainant’s house in the evening and complainant asked if a cheque for £2O would stop his wife from ringing ’ the police. He said he would take it and see. He remembered asking complainant for £5O to scare him, as he knew he had not got the money. He was going away without anything until the matter of £2O was mentioned. It was decided between his wife and himself to accept the cheque as they did not want the girl to appear in court. He heard no more about the matter until he received a letter from a firm of solicitors requesting a refund of the £2O. He later saw complainant and both agreed to let the matter drop. Accused reserved his defence and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail of £5O in his own recognisance was granted.