WAS THERE CONSPIRACY?

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 37, 13 August 1923, Page 8

WAS THERE CONSPIRACY?

BETWEEN REPATRIATION BOARD

OFFICERS

COULL BEFORE COURT AGAIN.

Charges af conspiracy in connection with false applications to the Repatriation Board for furniture loans and theft were responsible for the appearance of Frank Victor Herbert Coull before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a .jury of twelve, a t the Supreme Court today. Coull was charged with conspiring with Ernest William M'Cardell. who recently pleaded guilty to extensive frauds and was sentenced, and the facts, as outlined by witnesses for the Crown, were much the same as stated in the Court last week, when Coull appeared on charges of- forgery, uttering, and theft. On that occasion, the jury failed to agree, and a new trial was ordered. Il"; P- S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown,, and the accused was represented by Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. J. S. Hanna. Mr. Walter Perkins was foreman of the jury. Some difficulty was experienced in selecting a jury, the Crown' ordering twelve jurors to stand aside, and the defence challenging; four. In outlining the facte, the Crown Prosecutor said that it was alleged that Coull had conspired with M'Cardell for the puriiose of defrauding the Department. Some criticism had been levelled at the Repatriation Office on account of the several cases'"of dishonesty that had come to_ light, but actually the system of working in the office was a perfectly cood one, No matter how perfect a system was, > however, there were cases where there could be no check, as some officers had to be trusted by thpiy em.ployers. If it was shown that Coull was miiltv of conspiracy with M'Cardell, then he would also be gniltv of theft, as persons who assisted in the commission of an offence were equally jfnilty with the principal. The Crown Pvosecv.tor then proceeded to call evidence on the lines of that already given.

(Proceeding.)