GREAT BANK CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 285, 1 December 1924, Page 5

GREAT BANK CASE.

COUNSEL ALLEGES BLACKMAIL AN AMAZING CONSPIRACY. | INDIAN POTENTATES CHEQUE.) QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY j JURY. i (By Cable—rress Association.—Corc.ri.r-t. I LONDON, November 30. The case in which Charles Ernest | Robinson, bookmaker, is claiming £123,000. balance of the sum of £130,000, from the Midland Bank, as money alleged to have been received by j defendants for his use. or alternatively | as damages for alleged negligence, was resumed to-day in the King's Bench , division before Lord Darling. Sir John Simon said: "This is the first time in the history of the lav that | a man had the hardihood to come to , Court to openly claim a stupendous sum which was proved to be the result of | blackmail. The jury had an opportunity j to teach the plaintiff that it was the . last time such a thing could happen." ■ Lord Halsbury contended that the '. cheque was specially endorsed to Robin- I ton. He said Ilobbs was Robinson's ] agent. The cheque became Robinson's | property the moment it went into the ! hands of Hobbs. The evidence of the ] solicitor Waters exploded the con- | spiracy allegation, for "Mr. A.'' never , complained to him that he had been blackmailed. It was an insult to the jury to put into tho box Newton, a man bought for £3000 to com" and support the bank's story. The defence was mud-slinging. Counsel denied a shareout occurred. The police took Hobbs into custody at Oravesend. as he was about to depart for Holland. SECRECY AS TO NAMES. Lord Darling, summing up, said: "Mr. A." gained nothing by concealing his name. Despite the precautions taken to conceal his name, it, was difficult to believe anybody who knew him had been unable to "identify him. He emphasised that only fur State reasons had he assented to secrecy as to the names of I "Mr. A," and his aide-de-camp. He was of opinion the aide played n part quite unworthy of an Englishman, and descried every iuinishine.it which could be inflicted on a person who disgraced the English name. Replying to the judge's questions, the jury found it was a conspiracy to catch "Mr. A." with Mrs. Robinson, with a view lo getting money from "Mr. A.," and "Mr. A." was induced to part with the two cheques from fear. Also, "Mr. A." mind was so unsettled by fear of discovery that his action in parting with I the cheques was not free and voluntary', I but plaintiff was not a party to any such conspiracy, nor was Mrs. Robinson. Mrs. Robinson, after the jury's decision had been announced, said: "- v ly honour and character has been cleared, and my husband and myself have been vindicated. 1 do not care about the money. Nobody knows the worry and agony I have suffered during tlie past live " years. with this stigma over mc. i have been insulted rigut and left. Now I'm satisfied to be clear." i The judge put further questions to the 'jury, who ngain retired. I A BASE CONSPIRACY. I The public, whose interest in the case ! reached white heat, were much puzzled ' over its conclusion. They expected a simple, understandable verdict. Instead I the newspapers were almost snatched out of the vendors' hands to find that i they recorded merely the jury's answers ito "certain questions and their failure [to auawer others. I For the purpose of making the verjdict clear the "Daily Telegraph" suniI maris.d it thus: The jury found that : there had been a conspiracy to obtain i money from ".Mr. A.," whose action in parting with it was neither free nor j voluntary. They found that neither I Robinson nor his wife were parties to I this consniraey. and that the Midland ißank, in faying out the £130.000. obeyed I the mandate under which it had received ] the amount. The remaining questions, and the I jury's answers to them, were as follows: I "Were the words, 'Pay to the order of Robinson, Appleton Company.' appearing on the back of the cheque, written |by some person as agent for Appleton , Company ?"—"No." j "Had Hobbs and. or, the Appleton Company any intention of transferring 'the whole right, if any, in the cheque |to Robinson'"'' —"No." j "Did Hobbs, in drawing out the money, purport to act under the same 'authority as that under which it was | paid in';"—" Yes." A question on which the jury were of Hobbs and, or, the Appleton Company, whatever they were, in the cheque, lever transferred by either or both to Bubinson." INTENSE PUBLIC INTEREST. The case excited the most intense interest. During the whole week the . ourt was besieged by a long queue tc: the public gallery. Ino newspapers pub lished whole pages of the evidence, huch day yielcded a new sensational development. The "Daily Express" says the tensior in the packed Court broke in a sur prised when Lord Darling read the jury's answers. Women leaned cnei i'aud tapped barristers on the shoulders i'asking what it meant and who had won I One tact only stood clear, namely, that l' the jury had removed the names of tin • | Robinsons out of the mire of intrigue 'Mrs. Robinson sat gazing at Lord Dur ■ ling, a faint -mile oi satisfaction on he: I'face. She loosened the folds of lin i sable wrap and leaned an 1 whispered t. ;her husband. •i 11 is understood that the co«ts in tin ' 'case are likely to amount to _:i..,00u. ' ; Tin: "Daily Chronicle" says S.-iitliilu '■Yard has been engaged on inquiries ii L j the- case for many m..ntli... Detective |\\ere in the Law Courts throughout th I trial, and many officers yesterday u.-r I posted inside and oiu.-ide the Court. I Tbe dramatic- detention of Hobbs wa I not unexpected, and police act inn i other epiarters is considered t" '■•' "" | improbable. It would be inaccurate I [describe the action regarding H"bbs a inn arre-t. The warrant -va-s i--ucd, bu . jno charge lias yet been pn-ferrcd. . I Scotland Yard dele, lives saw hit I I with another man at I .raw-end. at th • quayside, i,err a .fani-r which w:l > ÜbniA to depart for Hol.and. nil f'brought both to London—'A. and X.. . —Reuter.)