SEVEN CHARGES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21085, 9 February 1934, Page 7

SEVEN CHARGES

i J. H. fJATCHELOR ON [ TRIAL ( S LP UK.ME COURT HEARING Seven charges, committing perjury in a Supreme Court petition for divorce, attempting to pervert the course of justice, fabricating evidence with the intention of misleading the course j of justice, making a statement on oath amounting to perjury, attempting to dissuade by threats a person from giving evidence, attempting to dissuade by a bribe a person from giving evidence, and another charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, were preferred against John Black Batchelor, private enquiry agent, in the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice Jo.hnston 1 and a jury. The hearing occupied the greater part of the day, and tne case lor the Crown will be continued at 10.15 this morning. Mr A. T. Donnelly prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr W. E. Leicester, of Wellington, represented the accused, who pleaded not guilty to all charges. Mr Donnelly said that the seven counts of the indictment fell into two divisions, the first four and the last three. 'Die accused was a private enquiry agent carrying on business in Christehureh. His business consisted in recuring evidence of misconduct in divorce cases and similar work. Such offences were grave, because from their nature they threatened the proper administration of justice. The present case was specially grave because the offences were not committed by Batchelor with the object of assisting himself, but were in the ordinary course of his work. Batchelor was a trader in perjury and the lubrication of evidence for whatever he could get out of it. The first four counts arose from a divorce case of a ! .Voung couple, Cyril and Isobel Dixon, ■ aged 19 and 18.V years respectively. The proceedings were heard in the Supreme Court, on August 24 by Mr Justice MacGregor. who granted the petitioner, Cyril Dixon, a decree nisi. The Crown Case The Crown case depended on whether Mrs Dixon was caught on May 24 in a compromising situation with an employee of the accused by Batchelor and another employee. The last three charges arose out of the conduct of the accused following his arrest. The Crown alleged that by threats and bribe Batchelor attempted to prevent Mrs Dixon from giving i evidence against him. ! The facts were complicated, said Mr : Donnelly, and it would be necessary | to follow the history of lhe Dixons. , Thev were married on June I. 1932. giving false particulars of their ages [ to the registrar. Dixon had since been I prosecuted and fined for this offence, j lie had never found a home for his wife and she had been forced to take | up domestic service. She consulted a solicitor and an arrangement was made for the payment of maintenance at 30s a week. By May, 1933, only about £l2 had been received. Dixon retained the accused to see if evidence could be obtained against his wife. On May 24 Mrs Dixon wrote to her husband, who was employed at the Islington freezing works, asking him to see her at her own address, preferably on Friday, May 26, after 8.30. The girl had slated that her intention was to see if a reconciliation could be effected. This letter was apparently handed over by Dixon to the accused, for it was found by the police in the accused's office. The girl, said Mr Donnelly, had had an unhappy career. She was an orphan, was a little bit simple, and had spent part of her life in homes and institutions. She was not as well equipped as were most women to

watch her own interests. The accused acted meanly, according to ordinary standards, in entering into a conspiracy with two employees named Smith and Campbell to manufacture false evidence to prove that Mrs Dixon had been found in a compromising situation. He knew that Mrs Dixon would be waiting for her husband after 8.30 on the evening mentioned, and he arranged to get her into a taxi and out to Islington. Campbell, under the name of James Williams, and as a j workmate of Dixon's, was to say that the latter was unable to get to Christchurch and that Mrs Dixon would see her husband if she accompanied him to Islington. They were to stop on a lonely part of the road, when the accused was to arrive and accuse the girl and Campbell of misconduct. The accused suggested that a "spot" might facili'ote matters, and Campbell set out aimed with a flask of whisky. The arrangements were carried out and near Hornby the car was slopped while Campbell and the driver had a drink. There was no imnronriety at any time. There was suddenly a patter of footsteps and the accused and his employee. Smith, opened the door of the cpv and accused them of misconduct. The girl thought that "Williams" was a bona fide friend of her husband and that he had been cofriprnmised. Later in Batcheior's ofTlce;;he was asked to sign a statement that she had been guiity of misconduct with a person she would not name, and was threatened that unless she did so the facts would be made public, locther with details of her connexion l with the institutions. Eventually she became so tired and afraid that she signed. Affidavit by Batchelor Filed Divorce proceedings were commenced, and the petitioner applied for leave to excuse himself from naming the co-respondent. An affidavit by Batchelor was filed, stating that he had teen the respondent in a compromising situation with a person not known to him. and that she had refused to divulge his name. Her defence to the petition was withdrawn as she was afraid of the threats of publicity and because her husband had said he did not want her. Later Campbell, evidently frightened, admitted to Mr Sargent, a solicitor acting for Mrs Dixon, that there had been no misconduct, and this was confirmed by the taxi driver. Campbell said that in the event of trouble he intended telling the truth. The case depended on the evidence of the girl and Campbell, and of the taxi-driver, an independent witness, who confirmed it conclusively. The accused was arrested on November 22, said Mr Donnelly, and on November 28 he approached Mr George Dixon, a garage proprietor, who was related to both Cyril Dixon and Mrs Dixon, seeking his assistance in securing a statutory declaration from Mrs Dixon that her confession wa.j a true one. (he suggestion being that she had been caught in a compromising situation earlier in the evening, but that there had been no misconduct in the taxi at Sockburn. Under threats supplied by Batchelor, Mrs.Dixon eventually signed the declaration and received £lO, ostensibly on account, of maintenance owing to her. Dixon was the tool of Batchelor. He had been worried about his step-son's position, and had been told that the declaration was true ;.nd would clear everything up. The following morning the girl became frightened again and went to , Dixon and said she wanted the papers back so that she could destroy them as she. had committed perjury. The ; accused told her that the documents she had signed were legal and that , those held by the police were not, and ! that she had only to keep quiet and : cry when in the witness-box to pre- j vent the police getting anything from , her.

Evidence Called

The fir.it witness called by the Crown was Walter Parker, DeputyRegistrar of the Supremo Court, Christchurch, who produced the file of the* divorce petition. Ronald Nathan Ablett, *oportOr for

"New Zealand Truth," gave evidence concerning the Supreme Court hearing, at which Batchelor testified to his investigations ns a private enquiry ageht. John B. Corbett, solicitor, produced an affidavit made before him by the accused, which was filed in the divorce proceedings. Charles L. James, Supreme Court crier, said he was present during the hearing of the divorce petition. The accused gave evidence after petitioner, and witness administered the usual oath. The accused said that acting on information received he went to Sockburn and there in a motor-car saw the respondent and an unknown male person in a compromising attitude. He said that the respondent refused to state the name of the other | person. i

Michael John Malone, clerk employed by the Blue Star Taxis, produced a record of calls received on May 2G. At 8.53 a call was received. Mcßratney, one of the drivers, was asked for, but a driver named English was scut to the corner of Cashel and Madras streets.

Ernest S. English, taxi-driver, said that he drove a car to the corner mentioned. He found two men standing near the corner. He did not know them, but he now knew they were a man named Campbell and the accused. On November 13 he identified Campbell from a number of men at the police station. Campbell got into the car and instructed witness to drive to Lichfield street. On the way there Campbell said he had to pick up a woman to drive her to Islington. The woman, whom witness picked up at her house in Lichfield street, sat in the back with Campbell. After crossing the Sockburn railway line on the Main South road, Campbell instructed witness to stop and have a drink. He offered Mrs Dixon a drink, but she refused. Campbell had had a drink or was about to have one when the rear door of the taxi was opened by the accused, who had another man with him. An argument commenced, and witness, after hearing a few words, left the car. He did not then know what the argument was about. When accused left, witness returned to the car nnd was instructed to drive back to the city. He dropped Campbell and Mrs Dixon in the square. Subsequently Mrs Dixon asked witness to see a solicitor. If the accused said that Mrs Dixon and Campbell were caught in a compromising attitude it would be quite untrue. No misconduct could have occurred. To Mr Leicester witness said that IE Mrs Dixon had come to him saying she had been accused of misconduct he would -willingly have given evidence in her favour. Search of Office Detective J. J. Halcrow said that on December 22 at- 9.20 a.m. he • met the accused in Gloucester street and told him that he had a warrant for his arrest on a charge of perjury. Accused took witness to his own office in Chancery lane. Witness said he wished to search the office, and the accused said he would get anything witness wanted. Witness asked for the file of the Dixon divorce case. The first document was a letter signed "Betty Dixon," and addressed to R. C. Dixon, Islington Freezing Works. The next was an authority to the accused to act for Cyril Dixon. There had been a warrant out for Dixon since September last, but he had not been located. Witness interviewed Smith a few days after the arrest of Batchelor, but he refused to say anything. On t le evening of November 30 witness with Detective McKenzie interviewed Mrs I Dixon and a man named Sliand. Shand handed over to witness a £lO banknote. A receipt for £lO on account of maintenance was handed to witness by the wife of George Dixon. It was written on a sheet of paper torn' from Mrs Batcheior's notebook. The same afternoon George pixon

' handed witness statements signed by Isobel Dixon and witnessed by a justice of the peace. These were typed by Mrs Batchelor on the accused's typewriter. Detective D- McKenzie gave confirmatory evidence. "Signed Under Threats" * Ethel Isobel Dixon, employed as a domestic, said she was born in England, ana came to New Zealand as a child. In June, 1932, she was married to Cyril Dixon, then aged 19. He was the son of Mrs George Dixon and the step-son of Mr George Dixon. Witness never lived with her husband, but she corresponded with him. She had had, up to the early part of February, 1933, only about 15s from her husband, and she consulted a solicitor regarding maintenance. On May 25 witness wrote to her husband with the idea of making a fresh start with him. She waited at home for him on Friday, May 26, as she said she would in the letter. The front door bell rang about 9.15, and a stranger asked to see her. He said her husband had sent him as he was unable to come, and asked if he could take her back to Islington. The taxi stopped about two miles from Islington, when the man, who later gave his name as Jim Williams, said that he wanted a drink. He offered witness a whisky, but she refused. The driver had one. Campbell had a drink and was about to have another when he heard footsteps outside the car and said someone was coming. Batchelor, who was known to witness, and another man whom witness had seen in Mr_ Sargent's office, to which witness believed he had followed ber, opened the door of the car. Witness was sitting in the corner of the car, and there was at least a foot between her and Campbell. Batchelor said: "This is a nice state of affairs," and to Campbell, "What would your wife say if | she knew about thjr." Batchelor said he had been watching witness for several months. Campbell and witness went back to the city after Batchelor and Smith had gone. They reached the Square at 10.30 and went to Batchelor s office. Batchelor arrived and all went into the office. Witness at that time had no idea that Campbell had told her lies, and believed mat they had "put one across" him as they had to her. Witness's hus- ■!, ca P ie i n a * ew minutes alter with Smith. Batchelor wanted witness to sign a statement that she had been guilty of misconduct with a man she would not name. Batchelor threatened witness that he would tell all her friends, and also referred to the institutions she had been in. If she signed the paper her husband would pay all and there would be no publicity. In _ the first place witness refused to sign the paper, but Batchelor went on threatening her until she signed it. Witness dia not remember reading the words. "I do not wish to oppose my husband's divorce." Some time after she was served with divorce papers, and witness consulted Mr Bowie, solicitor, who filed a defence. She withdrew it, however, still be'ng afraid of Batchelor's threats. She told Air Bowie all about the matter, and he advised her to find the taxi-driver for him. After the case, on the advice of a friend, she consulted Mr Sargent, solicitor, and they interviewed Campbell. On November 28 witness received a summons to give evidence on charges against Batchelor. She was told by a man named Hclmes that her father-in-law, Mr Dixon, wished to see , her. She went with Mr Dixon in a car to a lonely place near the Bromley cemetery.

At this stage Mr Leicester questioned the admissibility of evidence as to what transpired, and Mr Donnelly agreed to call the witness George Dixon before resuming the examination of Mrs Dixon.

Payment of £lO

George Dixon, garage proprietor, said that the girl Isobel Dixon was the niece of his wife, and married his step-son in June, 1932. He said that before Bachelor's arrest he and his

wife liad been very wemdd about Cyril Dixon's position. Batchelor had told witness that it was earlier in the evening of May 26 that he had caught Mrs Dixon in a car with a man. Batchelor said he would draw up a statement which would clear up the whole matter, and the truth of which Mrs Dixon would recognise When she saw it. Witness said he would do his best to get his niece to sign It. Witness went with Mrs Dixon In his car to Bromley, where they discussed the maintenance owing to Mrs Dixon. Witness wished, by paying oft the maintenance, to have the warrant against his step-son withdrawn.' They afterwards returned to witness's home and introduced Mrs Dixon to Mrs Batchelor, who was stated to be a Miss Johnson. Before introducing her, witness got Mrs Dixon to read through the statement, which the latter said was in order. It was then signed before a justice of the peace. After leaving the justice's house witness gave Mrs Dixon £lO on aceduht of maintenance.