YOUNG MAN FOR TRIAL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 84, Issue 189, 13 August 1940, Page 7

YOUNG MAN FOR TRIAL

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCE WITNESS REFERRED TO AS “HOSTILE TO JUSTICE” EVIDENCE REGARDING A* SUM OF £75 After hearing evidence brought by the police, Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui yesterday, committed Victor Joseph Gordon McKay, farm labourer, ages 18, for trial on a charge alleging that he attempted to obtain £75 from Alfred Francis Blake, by means of a false pretence, by alleging that he was being blackmailed by some men and required the money to pay them. Mr. H. G. Horsley, who appeared for McKay, submitted that betore the accused could be committed for trial it had to be proved that he had committed an offence. Counsel's submission was that if what accused had done was for the purpose of obtaining a loan, no offence had been committed. "I do submit in this case that there was no intention t<T deprive Blake of his £75,” said counsel. His Worship felt that a prima facie case had been made out, which was sufficient to place the accused upon his trial. J. K. Robertson conducted me case for the police and evidence was given by Detective J. Murray. Telephoned for £75

Alfred Francis Blake, farmer, Moumahaki, said McKay had been in his employ on a farm on Beach Road, Waverley. One day in February last McKay came to Wanganui and stayed one night. The next day he telephoned witness and asked for the loan of £75 and gave the name of a person to whom he wanted the money sent. Witness could not remember whether McKay told him what he wanted the money for. He said he wanted the money straight away. Witness did not believe McKay when he said he wanted the money urgently. He came to Wanganui with Mrs. Blake to make certain inquiries. He also saw McKay, who was upset. Asked by Detective-Sergeant Robertson and His Worship whether McKay gave a reason why he wanted the £75, Blake replied that he could not remember. Detective-Sergeant Robertson remarked that Blake was hostile to the administration of justice. Mr. Salmon: In my own view he has shown that he does not wish to give evidence and is therefore hostile to ‘the administration of justice. Blake was asked by the magistrate if he made a statement to the police on July 5, and said he must have done so. “Is that statement different to what you are making to-day?” asked His Worship. “I don’t know what is in the statement.” The statement was then given him to read.

Blake was asked if the statement he made on July 5 was true and replied that a lot of it was not true. He added that he signed the statement but did not read it. “Asked if it was read over to him, he replied that he did not know, as he was in bed at the time. Asked if the part of the statement which said that he believed what McKay had told him and was prepared to send the £75, Blake replied that it was not true.

He had discussed the matter with Mrs. Blake and his mother before coming to town.

Witness, continuing his evidence after the luncheon adjournment, said that he knew McKay had been worried. When he telephoned for the £75 he (witness) believed it was McKay who wanted it. Witness was not prepared to give the money until he found out further circumstances. He made enquiries from one Wanganui business man. Some days later, on the farm, he asked McKay why he wanted the money. McKay then said that what he first told witness was not true. Wages Paid as Required

To Mr. Horsley, witness said that for some time while McKay was in his employ he only paid him wages as he wanted them. He knew there was a substantial sum of money to McKay's credit in the Child Welfare Department. There was no suggestion at the time that McKay asked for the £75 that he would be leaving or going out of his control. McKayasked for the £75 as a loan. He believed that if he advanced the money on loan he would be repaid. He did make other advances of money to McKay.

Witness said there was some bitter fueling between his wife and McKay, because of a farm he (Blake) intended to take over. He was going to put McKay on as manager, provided his mother came too. Mr. Horsley: Your wife was opposed to McKay managing the farm? —Yes, very bitterly opposed to it. She considered he was not responsible enough?—Yes. Do you know whether she tried to getrMcKay removed from the farm? —Yes, I know she did.

Do you know whether she saw the police in this connection?—Yes, she did. Detective-Sergeant Robertson: You say there was very bitter feeling between your wife and McKay. You nave told the Court that?—Yes. Has that ceased now? —I don't think so.

Detective-Sergeant Robertson: You say you never paid him more than his wages, but you advanced him money to pay debts? —That was out of his wages. Was that before the house was burnt down? —Yes. I did that several times. I would not advance him more than was due, except that I might make it up to the end of the month, if there was a week or so to go. This man McKay is the same person who stands charged with you in the Supreme Court on a charge of conspiracy ?—Yes.