RECTOR CHARGED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 119, 23 May 1932, Page 7

RECTOR CHARGED

CONSISTORY COURT ALLEGED MORAL OFFENCES DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION CHURCH'S GREAT FAILURE -Telegraph—Press Association— Received May 22, 5.15 p.m. LONDON, i\iay 21. The Reverend H. F. Davidson, rectoi of »Stiffkey, Norfolk, who is chargeu before the Norwich Diocesan Consistory Court by the Bishop of Norwicu with grave mural offences, referring to a motor trip to (Stiffkey with Air. anti Mrs. Osborne, gave evidence that the fourth member of the party was a New Zealand clergyman’s daughter, aged about 28, who came to London with a reputation as an actress, She was then playing a juvenile lead at the Regent Theatre. He knew her father. »Shc was now a Catholic nun. When the Rev. Davidson heard that she was contemplating conversion, he lent her a book opposing such a course and introduced her to the Bishop ol Norwich, hoping ho would dissuade her. The Rev, Davidson denied placing his arm around her waist in the car, or that there was undue familiarity.

He denied the allegations concerning girls in lea shops, and replying to the Chancellor’s question regarding an introduction, the Rev. Davidson retorted: “If you are going to make these girls outcasts you will never raise them. The churchgreat failure is its icebergs, who draw their skirts away from such girls.’’ Thus far the Rpv. Davidson has been seven hours in the witness box. The examination is incomplete. REMARKABLE LIFE DETAILS OF ALLEGATIONS WAITRESSES PESTERED Astounding allegations of “system atic misbehaviour iu London” were made against the Rev. Harold Francis Davidson, rector of titiffkey, Norfolk, when he appeared on March 29 before the Norwich Diocesan Consistory Court to answer charges against his morui character. The Court sat at Church House, Westminster. Four charges were brought against the rector by the bishop. They were:— (1) That the defendant has been guilty of immoral conduct from (September, 1921, until November, 1931, with Rose Elizabeth Ellis.

(2) That the defendant in or about the month of August, 1929, was guilty of immoral conduct in that he annoyed and made improper suggestions to Dorothy Burn at the premises ol Walbrook, London, of Messrs. J. Lyons and Company, Limited. (3) That the defendant was on November 12, 1931, guilty of an immoral act in that he embraced a young woman in a public room of the Yeng Wah Chinese Restaurant, in High Street, Bloomsbury.

(4) That the defendant has during the last five years been guilty ot immoral habit in that he has habitually associated himself with women ol a loose character for immoral pur-

Before the hearing began Air. Roland Oliver, K.C., for the Bishop of Norwich obtained leave to add a fifth charge, accusing Air. Davidson of the immoral habit of accosting, molesting and importuning young females for immoral purposes. A complete denial of all the charges was entered on behalf of Mr. Davidson. His counsel arc: Alessrs. R. F. Levy, Ryder Richardson and K. J. P. Barraclough. Counsel for the bishop are: Messrs. Roland Oliver, Walter Monckton, K.C.. and Humphrey King. The case is being heard by Air. F. Keppel North. Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich. Ho will report his findings to the bishop.

Actions Toward London Girls In his opening speech Mr. Oliver said the rector, who was 60 years old, was married and the father of five children. He used to spend every week fro In Monday morning until Saturday night in London. He had a bed-sit-ting room at Macfarlano Road, Shepherd’s Bush. Counsel alleged that Air Davidson met a girl of 16 named Gwendoline Harris near Marble Arch. Mr. Davidson was dressed in mufti, and she did not know he was a clergyman. The acquaintance began by Air. Davidson saying: “Excuse me, are you not Miss X, the film actress ”

In July, 1931. defendant sent Miss Harris and another girl to his rectory, where they were employed as maids — while he was still going to London for the week. They waited at the station for him to come back, and slept out in the fields for two nights rather than go hack to the house. Thon they started to walk back to London, a distance of 110 miles. On another occasion Miss Harris was taken by the rector to an actress’ flat in Marylebono—a flat of which ho had the key. Air. Oliver said also that Air. Davidson had many times “postered ” waitresses in various London cafes to go out with him. Ho had boon ordered to keep away from eafos in Walbrook and in Oxford Street following complaints by waitresses. The name oi one of those waitresses was kept secret. It was further alleged that Air. Davidson had taken a room for an artist’s model in Bloomsbury, and had undertaken to pay the rent.

Counsel went on to say that Mr Davidson had boon rector of Stiffkov since 1906. the living being worth £BOO a year. It was a very small parish in which there wore not more than 500 people. “Tn his favour lot us snv Air. Oliver stated, “that the parish was not largo enough an occupation to keep an active-minded man fully engaged. Wo are prepared to concede him that at once. He is married ami he has five children, four of them dependent on him. Two Alleged Obsessions “For many years, certainly 10, this clergyman has led rather a remarkable existence. Tho only time, or substantially the only time, ho spent in hi? narish has been Sunday, when ho used to attend and conduct divine service. All the rest of the week he spent in

London. He used to travel up very early on Alonday, arriving in practically the small hours and leaving Lon dou on Saturday night. This went on week after week, month after mouth and year after year. “There were two occupations, or perhaps obsessions would be the better word, which tho rector seemed to have had principally in London. One was the seeking out—perhaps the word chasing is too harsh —or looking for, a Mr. Gordon, who was apparently a gentleman from whom tho clergyman had financial expectations. He was involved with him in some sort of busi ncss and was always telling people that Air. Gordon would soon be paying him £5OOO, and then all his worries would bo over.

“The other main occupation seemed to have been associating with quite young women from the age of 16 upwards. That is the side of his activr ties which has got to be inquired into in this Court. It has nothing to do with Air. Gordon. “Was It Innocent?” “These occupations kept him in London tho whole of every week except Sunday for many years. Was i an innocent association or a guilty one! Whatever the nature of his in tentions was in all of his associations with young women, it was an associatioi which caused him to take them to theatres or cinema shows, or out to meal or for taxicab rides, or to pay Iqr their lodgings. If he had been a man of means that would have bee.n less remarkable, but he has been an undischarged bankrupt since 1925, with a wife and four children dependent upon him.” Mr. Oliver said that after Air. Davidson’s bankruptcy his income fell to something like one-half what it was before, and there he was, a man with £4OO a year, spending money on these girls, and one asked oneself what was the nature of tho association. Was this charity or was it self-indulgence! Was this charity in a man who was so put. to it for money that ho did not know whore to turn and could not pay anybody! Was it consistent, going no further with one’s knowledge of life, that that man should be indulging in comparatively expensive ehar'ty among very young women in T.ondon.