FRAUD ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 59, 7 September 1917, Page 7

FRAUD ALLEGED

BETTING TELEGRAMS

PROMINENT PEOPLE INVOLVED

POLICE COURT PROCEEDINGS

CONTINUED.

Further consideration was given today in the Magistrate's Court to the charges of intent to defraud and'conspiracy preferred against Frederick Campbell Fraser, David Hodges, John Edward Fitzgerald, and John M'Williams, in-con-nection with certain betting transactions by meass of "no reply" telegrams. The case has created a great deal of interest, as was evidenced by the large attendance of the public in Court.

Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., was on the bench, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr. T. Neave appeared for Fraser, Mr. T. M. Wilford for Hodges, Mr. A. Gray, K.C. (with him Mr. G. G. G. Watson), for Fitzgerald, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for M'Williams. ".

Ellen Mary Driscoll, cleric at the telegraph office in the Government Buildings, was the first .witness. She said she had known Fraser for two or three yeare. On 14th July he came to the fffice about 11.29 a.m., and handed in thirteen telegrams, asking her to time them straight away, which she did. Fraser then asked if he might have them back to use the telephone. She gave, them to him, and then he went to.the telephone, returning in, a few minutes, and again handed in the forms. She did not notice if the telegrams were complete when Fraser handed them in the first time, but she noticed him writing something on to them after he had used the telephone. She; could not remember if Fraser said anything when lie handed in the telegrams a second time. A couple of days later she saw Fraser and told him that enquiries were being made about the time, and he asked her not to mention his name. :

To Mr. Neave: She--was quite sure, that the letters L.E.X. on the.telegraphy forms (meaning 11.29 a.m.) were correct. The letters L.B.S. on a form would mean 11.27 a.m., but she was quite sure she had not made a, mistake in putting down L.E.X. instead of L.E.S. Tt was onlypeople who put in racing wires that were particular as to the timing of them, and Fraser specially asked for this to be done. Fraser said nothing about any of the telegrams not being correct, and she could not remember if he had sent any telegrams on the previous day. Eraser was in the habit of using the telegraph office frequently for, telegrams and postal business. She could not tell whether or no Fraser rang up the Exchange and got connected with anybody, bne did not hear any conversation. Was there any suggestion that you might make a bet at the races that:day!—No,, none. ■ , When did you know that there was trouble about the .telegrams?—A• couple of days afterwards. Did you receive a written, request to explain the timing of them?— The first was a telephone communication. , How many interviews have you had on this matter'with the authorities?— Three or four. . , mn . . How long were you m Mr. M'Villas office?— About five minutes. Had you been questioned oy anyone . before that interview ?—Yes, by 'Mr. Markmann, on the same day. For how long?— About an £our. Would you deny that it was two hours?—lt may have been. Were you toll a fraud had beenefiected by the telegrams ?—Mr. Markmann said there was "something funny" about them. . Did Mr. Markm&nii tell you what his ideas were?—No; I don't think he did. Had he seen you more than once before the interview in Mr. M'Villy's office.?.—. Yes. GUARANTEED AGAINST LOSS. Arthur Edward Whyte, secretary of the Wellington Racing Club, was called to testify to the date of the meeting, in question and the winning of the Talavera Hurdle Race by San Sebastian. The totalisator, on that race, was closed at 11.25 a.m., and the race- was started within a minute after 11.30 a.m.., ahd took. 2min 57sec to run. He knew M'Williams, who came to see him two days after the race, meeting, and said that he;h&d been induced to lend his "no reply" telegrams, and that the bookmaker!; had declined to pay out. M'Williams wanted to know what; steps to take in the matter. He also told witness that on the Friday night before the races he had received a message asking him if he would like to be in a "good; thing" to-raOTrow, and if he had any "no reply" telegrams. The messags came from Fitzgerald. There was some discussion as to the amount to-, he reserved for M'Wifliams, and as', they could not agree on this point it was ' agreed that M'Williams should wait on Fitzgerald at 8.30 a.m. on the following day. The gist of what M'Williams told witness was that he was offered £10 for the wires. The following morning Fitzgerald introduced M'Williams. to . Fraser, telling him that Fraser had the horse. M'Williams asked \for the name of the horse, but Fraser said ho could not give it. M'Williams pressed for the name, but was refused. It was then arranged -that M'Williams should surrender his telegrams, and Fitzgerald, agreed to guarantee M'WiMTams against Ipss. On the racecourse, after the first race was run, M'Williams was descending from the stand, .when he met Fitzgerald, who asked him "how ho would like to be on that horse" (meaning San Sebastian). M'Williams asked if that was the. horse they were supposed to be on, and complained again at not having been, told the name, as the dividend.was so 'good. Fitzgerald told hini that he believed that was the horse they were on.

TO SHOW! THE "BOOKS" UP.

Continuing, witness said- thftt at a "future interview with M'Williams, the latter said tlmt he was in. doubt whether Fitzgerald was in the swindle or not. Fitzgerald had said that .the conversation at tho foot of the grandstand had taken place an horn- after the race, and not immediately after it. M'Williams, when interviewing witness, was very 1 indignant a;t the suggestion that there was any tiling vnong about' the '.transaction. What did lie say ?—Ho said if he got in the witness box he would tell the whole' truth; that he had told Fitzgerald so, and that he would bring, the bookmakers to Court and show them up, even if he were prosecuted for betting himself. -

To Mr. Gray:' M'Williams appeared to^think he ,\vas quite entitled to the money, at the first interview, but after making enquiries, evidently changed his mind. M'Wilhams did not suggest that Fitzgerald refused to give the name of the horse. Neither did lie say thai Fitzgerald had pressed Fraser to give the name of tho horse.

To Mr. 6'Leary: M'Williams was quite frank and; open about tho transaction, and lie (witness) was satisfied M'Williams was telling the truth. There was no doubt in the world • about M'Williams's honesty and integrity. What it was proposed was that M'Williaine should retain £10 worth of his £70 worth of "no reply" wires, but M'Williams wanted 1 at least half of it. He did not want to go into the transaction without knowing the name of the horse. He (witness) could not remember M'Williams saying to him that he-.-ffisked Fitzgerald

lor the name of the horse, and that Fitzgerald replied: "He (meaning Fraser) '.will not tell me, and it s not likely he is Agoing to tell you.'"

MARTINDALE IN-THE BOX.

' Henry Martindale said he was a commission agent. On 14th July he received i two telegrams addressed •to "R. M. IScott, Wellington," signed "John Handle" and "Little John." Each telegram read, "Twenty, San Sebastian." .. Who is "John Handle" ?—John Fitzgerald. And "Littlejohn" ?-^M'Williams. Continuing, witness said that he had .granted Fitzgerald the use of a £20 "no reply" wire to be put in at the Government Buildings office on the day of the graces. So far as he knew, Fitzgerald had never used a "no reply" wire in 'town,before. A "no reply" wire meant, ;that if a telegram was lodged before the 'time of the starting of a race the bet was "on,", and there was no need to send 1 a "reply. The limits paid were £7 10s for ■a winner and £2 10s for a second horse. ,On the day of the races he received th» 'wires at about 12.10 p.m., and immediately wired to the sender* that he would not accept any further telegrams.

PAYMENT WITHHELD

: L Two days afterwards he made enquiries ;-at the Post Office, being suspicious of U'tho'timing of fhe wires. The same day ; ;hb received' a fetter from Fitzgerald, ;'who also saw him later. Fitzgerald said ' -he had expected a cheque by the mornding's post, and witness said he was not ■quite satisfied with the telegrams. A ■liweek later he again saw Fitzgerald, and .! !|the, previous conversation was practically •Tepeated, witness adding that he was hay- ■ 'ing enquiries made by the postal officials. Fitzgerald said the whole amount was not for himeelf, his share being only a small one. Fitzgerald said ho would make witness pay, or words to that effect. ■'.: About eight days later he again saw Fitzgerald, who said that from what he had ■' 'heard he did not think that he (witness) ', :«hould pay out on the bet. ■}. : "CROOK" TELEGRAMS. \l 'Witness went on to say that M'Wil■'■liams came to see him, and said that so ';faTias he could see everything was all bright. He told 51' Williams that he ■ 'was not satisfied with the telegrams, and '-the-latter said, "I think you'll find they --are all right." Later he again saw "M'Wiliiams and said that the telegrams 'were "crook," and refused to pay out. offered to lay £200 to £100 '•that the telegrams were all right. ;■; Mr. Wilford : Did you take it?—No; "I told him. it would be taking his <j money. ■ ■ '. -I Mr. O'Leary : Kindness of heart ? —I '.'suppose so. "■ *Mr.. Neave : You know a man named Zola V— Yes. . . ""Did you get him to make enquiries for. you?— No. -•<■ When you went to see Markmann, ■••* did you tell him that Fraser was friendly *< with a lady in the Government Build--2 ings ?—I did not. *' Were you not frightened to go to a I postal - official and make Va .complaint f'ab*oiii>Y these .telegrams?— No.'" :. ,i jpid'yoa not apprehend some difficulty '■'■ in'^Tegard .to your, correspondence? —I '% did.--'-' '/■■■■ ;: •'"'•-''

"! But you took the risk?— Yea. Did you prefer to get to the bottom of this matter of the telegrams or to retain your postal facilities ?—I thought I was entitled to know about them. Continuing, Martindale said his suspicions were first aroused by the delay jn the delivery;, of the telegrams to him. - The telegrams weie not finished until 10 past 12. Frasor had several other . bets with him that day. Whom did you suspect about the telegrams ?—NoTiody in particular. '>' Not a postal official?— No. Did you make any bets that day over the telephone 2056?— Yes. With Tracer ? —One, which was a bit late. " " ; What was it?—£2-on Petruchio.Tho fact of the telegrams being put in only one minute before the time of the race did not arouse your suspicions? —Oh do. Did Fraser have any other bet with you on that day?—No, Not on Centre?— No. Master Strowan ?—N«. Sardinia?—No, Crib?—No, Kaupokonui ?—No. ■ ; Oh, very well. NOT A BIT " SORE." In reply to Mr. Giay, witness stated ■hat ho had known Fitzgerald for some fears and had had transactions with him '.: jefore. Fitzgerald, when asking for the •-•■ use of a "no reply" wire, said ho was -'■ going to tho races early, and the wire .' might be used by someone in hi 6 ab--7 sence. Be was quite certain that Fitz- ■ gerald had said the wire would be put <; in at the Government Buildings office. If Fitzgerald says he never mentioned Government Buildings, will you contrair.'dict liim?-i-J.■will. .. ' !'. YoU; are ; feeling a bit sore over all ": this, are you not?—Oh, no, not sore. '.' But you have described it as a " dirty ! attempt to take you down," have you • not?—l have not. 'r But you do think so?—I am not go- ;' ing to say. Continuing in further reply to Mr. ■■<• Gray, witness stated that when Fitz- -, gerald had telephoned liim he might have ' asked why witness had ■ sent the wire v on the Saturday, declining any further transactions. He, witness, did not say ','■ to Fitzgerald that there was something ;■■ " cronk" about the Post Office: He '<■ did not blame any postal official; he ,; did not know whom to. blame. Fitzgerald apparently treated the bet as a genuine one. At an interview with '■■ Fitzgerald on 2nd August he ascertained that Fitzgerald had been making enquiries. .-i When Fitzgerald told you that you I' should not pay out, did you ask him ;_ why?— No. .».' Why?—l did not want to discuss the ;' matter at all. '■, "BOOKIES" AND THEIR BOXES. Were you and Fitzgerald on as good ",', terms at this time as previously?— No. ;■ Did not Iris threat to communicate '>> with the Post Office people disturb you, ,', as your correspondence might be stop- ' ped?—lt didn't trouble me. Mr. Neave: Better stop the telephone. Mr. Gray: Was there any mention of •■; a member of Parliament? —No. Did you not blame Fitzgerald for hav- '': ing got a member of Parliament to raise .'"' the question of bookmakers and thoir ■•'" letter boxes in the House?—l did not; 7 I might -have mentioned it outside, bnt • not to Fitzgerald. '■■•' To Mr. O'Leary: It was a fairly com- '", mon practice to borrow "no reply" wires. M'Williams had had a £20 "no reply" » wire with him for some years, but- Fitz- £ gerald had never had. one until Friday, -. 13th July. M'Williams, who had always ■' been honest in his dealings with witness, '1 was insistent that the transaction in " question waa a genuine one. He also " said that he, M*WiHsfflms, -was going to- '" make..enquiries at the Post Office.

THE WRONG LAW.

Robert Law, commission agent, said that on the 14th July last he received '-■' two telegrams signed "John M'Wil- . 'liams," asking for bets of £10 on ' Sa-n. Sebastian. He had never mado » a bet with M'Williamß, but had put % money on for him before. He showed 'C the telegram from M J Williams to his brother, Arthur Law. - To Mr. O'Lesry : He had known . • M'Williams for 16 years, and had< found him to be a very straight man. He wan' sure tiat U'Wfflim* ■.&&&-•*&>

knowingly take part in a swindle. The wires from M'Wiliiams were merely asking him to put money on for him. Such wires would have to be put on a good deal before the starting time of a race. ■

Arthur Law, another commission agent, said that at the time of tho Winter races he had- not got a "no reply" wire arrangement with M'Wiliiams. On Monday, 16th July, he told M'Wiliiams in reply to a question that he had not received any telegrams from him, although "Bob" had. The wires from M'Wiliiams were not for him.

To Mr. Gray : A £20 "no reply" wire meant a £20 limit in each race, so that a person would be ciedited to the extent of £160 for a, day of eight races. He knew Fitzgerald, and had had previous dealings with him. His experience of Fitzgerald was always satisfactory. Ho had always found him honest and straightforward.

What is your betting name ?—R. Law. Mr. O'Leary: Did you not receive any wires from M'Wiliiams on that day?— No.

Well, hore they are addressed, "R. Law, Carlton Hotel." What's wrong with that?—Carlton Hotel, sir.

What ?—Carlton Hotel is not my, address.

What should it be?—R. Law, Wellington. , . .

In further reply to Mr. O'Leary witness said that a "no reply" wire was generally cancelled if it were not used for three months. He gave M'Wiliiams an excellent character for straight dealing.

A "SUGGESTION."

Philip Byrne, clerk in the employ of David Ross, said that on the day in question he received a telegram signed "Littlejohn," saying "Suggest San Sebastian." "Suggest" was a code word meaning £10, and "Littlejohn" was M'Wiliiams. The time the telegram was put in was 11.29 a.m., and this aroused some suspicion. No money was paid out on the bet. He believed, but did not know, that M'Wiliiams saw Ross about the matter.

David Rose, commission agent, said! that he saw M'Williams on about 16th or 17th July, and told him that, in the absence of arrangements, the bet he had wired could not be "on." Some considerable time before he had been in the habit of receiving telegrams from M'Williams, but the "no-reply" privilege lapsed through not being used. To Mr. O'Leary: Although he had no telegraphic business with M'Williams, he had "any amount" of Transactions. When M'Williams interviewed him, it was mentioned by M'Williams that he was in witness's debt, and M'Williams said that no money having been put on for him, in reply to his wires, that would "square things up." A few days .'later M'Williams told him that the.squaring arrangement would be "off," as he'thought the wire had not been in order. Witness replied, "Oh, all right." He never suspected that M'Williams would be mixed up in any swindle. William Whelan, commission agent, Christchurch, gave evidence, of having received one of the "Littlejohn" telegrams in code to put £10 on San Sebastian, but he replied that there was nothing booked, as the. wire referred to the second race, the Onslow Handicap. Subsequently M'Williams wrote, asking for payment, and witness replied, returning the original telegram showing that M'Williams had backed San Sebastian in the second race, and, consequently, there was no bet. What was the time on the wire ?— 11.29 a.m.

When did you receive it?—lt was finished at, 2.30, and I got it about 3.45. To Mr. O'Leary: The only reason he had for refusing to pay out was that the horse was backed in the wrong race. He had always found M'Williams to be upright and honourable in his dealings. M'Williams had had a "no reply" arrangement with him, or hi* principals.

THE DETECTIVE'S EVIDENCE

Detective-Sergeant ■ Bawle stated that on 6th August he arrested Fraser, charging him with false pretences. Fraser made no reply to the charge. On Bth August 1 witness and Detective-Sergeant Andrews saw Fitzgerald, and read to him a statement from a notebook—a statement to the effect that on arrangement for the use of the "John Handle" telegram, Fitzgerald had filled in tlie form, leaving the name of the horse blank, and knew exactly the arrangement under which the bet was to be made.

Fitzgerald replied to this: "I have known Fraser for about three years. This is not the first betting transaction I have had with him. y On several occasions he has asked me to invest money, aud sometimes the horses won and sometimes lost. This particular transaction came about in this manner. Fraser came to me on the 13th, and asked me if I could invest some money for him. I replied that 1 as I was going to the races I could not. He then asked for the loan of my "no reply" -wire with R. M. Scott. I told him it waa not usual, and I would try to arrange a transfer. I went to Martindalo, and asked if I could lend my wire to another man, that it might be used in my absence, but I did not mention to. Martindale to whom it was to be lent."

The statement went on to say that Fitzgerald on the morning of. the races gave to Fraser the form filled up so far, as follows: "R. M. Scott, Wellington. Twenty. John Handle." If the bet was successful Fitzgerald was to get half the winnings. M'Williams was introduced to Fraser that morning. Fitzgerald said he did not receive anything for the use of his "no reply" wire.

Witness went on to refer to an interview he had with M'Williams, and told' him what Fraser had said in regard to the use of the "Littlejohn" wires and that M'Williams was to receive onethird of the proceeds for the loan of the wires. (Proceeding.)