SENT FOR TRIAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 43, 20 February 1940, Page 9

SENT FOR TRIAL.

CONSPIRACY CHARGE, i ALLEGED INVENTION. DETECTIVES GIVE EVIDENCE (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. Lengthy evidence for the police in tlie case in which Harvey Maitland Chrvstail and Gordon Percy Aston are jointly charged with having conspired, by deceit, to defraud Hartley Roy Sellers (deceased) of sums totalling about £0765 was concluded this afternoon. The accused pleaded :iot guilty and were committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed at £1000, with a surety of a similar amount, or two sureties of £.">OO each. Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. C. E. Purchase appeared for Aston and Mr. W. E. Leicester and Mr. R- T. Pcacock for Chrystall. Detective-Sergeant Murray gave evidence of an interview with Chrystall at Nelson. He also produced a statement signed bv Chrystall detailing liis connection with Aston and Sellers. The statement said that Chrystall and Aston were associated throughout, and he (Chrystall) accepted full responsibility in getting the money for Aston's patent. Experiments were actually carried out at Tahunanui as stated, according to Chrystall's statement, witness continued. Experiments with great danger to Aston and himself, accused had said, were carried out on the patent. In the signing of the agreement with Batt for the guarantee of Sellers' account for £3000, Chrystall said he and Sellers were taken completely by surprise by Batt's insistence that the premium should be £6000 instead of £3000. "Completely Disarmed.". Continuing, witness said reference was made in the statement to a cheque handed to Chrystall by Sellers for £150 and drawn on the Racing Conference No. 2 account. Chrystall stated that Sellers had assured him it was all right and subsequently told him that he had seen his chairman. Accordingly, when Sellers wrote out the other cheque on the same account for £750, accused said to witness, both Chrystall and Aston were completely disarmed. The fact that two further cheques for £150 and £80 re«|>cetively, both drawn by Sellers on the same account, corresponded with remittances by Sellers to Aston of similar- amounts was a matter al>out which he (Chrystall) knew nothing. Referring to liis meeting with the Racing Conference executive committee. Chrystall said to witness that he frankly told the committee that he accepted full responsibility for what had occurred, but he did that as much to help Sellers as anything else. Chrystall also stated that while in Sydney in June, 1939. he had completed arrangements so that Aston would have £1150 available in New Zealand to reimburse the Racing Conference, subject to Sellers agreeing to certain conditions. "Whole Business Bona Fide." All moneys he had received from and through Sellers, continued Chrystall's statement, were used in connection with the business. "I want to make it clear that from my own personal knowledge and experience as an engineer the whole business is !>onn fide," the statement continued, "and all the matters I represented to Sellers, Batt and others in obtaining finance for the business have been genuine." Detective-Sergeant Murray also produced notes on an interview with Aston at Christchurch last December. Witness 6aid Aston was questioned as to the alleged invention and said he bad no money transactions with Sellers. He had added that a month before Sellers disappeared he (Aston) had received a clearance showing there was no money owing between him and Sellers. In a subsequent interview Aston had told witness that in all the money transactions with Sellers and Chrystall he had simply acted a* Chrystall'* agent with any money lie had received. Aston had denied having said the Awatea had been fitted with anti-torpedo platen at Sydney, and. answering otlieiquestions, had replied that he was not prepared to discuss his financial interest# in Australia or elsewhere. He could not, understand Sellers disappearing, liecausc everything could have been fixed up within 24 hours. "Shook Bis Head." Witnesa added that when Aston was asked whether he did claim to have 6ome contract or arrangement with the British Admiralty he shook his head, and Saidi "I cannot tell you that." Money traced from Sellers to Aston was, Aston had said, in connection with ordinary business and there was no fraud in anything he had done. Detective-Sergeant James McClurg, Christchurch, said that on July 10, 1939, he had a conversation with Aston in connection with another matter not before the Court. Aston said there were Ho financial difficulties between himself and Sellers, but that there were considerable financial difficulties between Sellers aud Chrystall and tjiut the amount involved was about £7000. Mr. Leicester intimated Chrystall had nothing further to Bay to the Court at the present stage. Counsel suggested that the Court might formally overrule any objections he had made as to the admissibility of evidence. "No Complaint." In giving his reasons, Mr. Leicester Said the evidence had been published and so far as Chrystall was conccrned counsel had no complaint regarding the manner in which the evidence bad been published or the fairness of the prosecution.. It seemed unprofitable to embark on a discussion of the evidence for the purpose of pressing the objection. Therefore, it did not follow that if objections were allowed at the present stage the trial judge would necessarily take the same view or that there would be any substantial gain in pressing the objections. Mr. Purchase said he wished to associate himself with Mr. Leicester's remarks, and so far as Aston was concerned lie was content to leave the matter in the hands of the Court. The Only matters to which he felt he had substantial objection, said Counsel, were those referring to the gold-making episode in 1928 and to Aston's habit of tearing up bank notes. The first reference was to something said to have taken place many years before anything that could have possibly affected the present case. As to the second objection, it had not been shown that the habit was outside Aston's normal personal habits for a period of years. It might be foolish, but it had no relation to the present cliargc. The magistrate, in ruling that there was a prima-facie case against the two accused, said it was not necessary for him to go into the question of objections to evidence. He would formally overrule all objections and commit the accused for trial at the Supreme Court. 1