THE ROBINSON CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 6, 8 January 1925, Page 8

THE ROBINSON CASE

"MR. A." AND HIS £150,000

GREATEST BLACKMAIL PLOT

EVER KNOWN

THE; JURY'S FINDINGS.

(fROM ODE-OWN COBRE3PONDINT.O ;- ' LONDON, 3rd December:; : For the last week the detailed account of the Robinson case has taken precedence of all other items in the.news-: papers. Robinson v. the Midland Bank sounds like a financial dispute over fig- "■ nres and balances, but .behind it is. the - greatest, most successful...blackmailing plot ever known. The victim of ;the plot was an Indian .-' of immense wealth, and of.high politi-;- ---: cal importance. . His name must not be mentioned "for reasons of State." Lord ': Darling explained. He has 'therefore ; been known as "Mr. A," an Eastern potentate.-'--: ■" :;f';'---- '.'<■"!.■ -.-;,";•." ; h ,. '■■ ." Technically, the case was a claim by ".Mr. Charles Ernest Robinson, Golders % " . .Green ■ (formerly-, of Australia), against ':' the Midland Bankj the largest financial .". corporation' in this1 * country, for. the re- I . ... turn to <him of £125,000, money declar- :; >cd. to have been 'paid to his account ':. a,nd credit, 'or*..'alternatively'for £125,- ---■ 7 000 in' damages' for negligence. Both : plaintiff and defendants agreed in this - —that the Eastern .potentate paid no; less ■'-. a sum than' £150;000, by cheque-on .a '.'. London, .house. above,his name, .in order. i to avoid 'divorce 'proceedings against .* him in-respect'-of'his'misconduct; with ■ . Mrs. Florence "Maud" Robinson, the wife of Mr. Charles E. Robinson. ■';. ..„■■', ■';"''. After'that: the two-side 3 diverged. It '. was alleged for -Mh Robinson that he • received only £25,000 of the money paid ,; by '"Mr.. A.;" and immediately handed' .-'_ the amountj' which was in a bundle of .-; 'Bank of England.notes, to his wife," say- ■• ' ing at -the 1 time that he wanted nothing '.'; whatever: to do with her again. ; He- ; tried, to- prove, that £125,000—the' bal- ■'-- ance of-'tho'.^lSO.OOO^was': 'wrongfully' ".. paid ovef' by the Midland Bank on. dif- • '■■■ ferent cheques! signed "C. Robinson,'*; a • Forgery of ..Ms.signature, and,'.therefore, that he is entitled to" recover that .'amount • from the bank. '-.•' '■''.';'■ " ' ' Counsel,for.jMr. Robinson.maintained, '•* Dn tneir instructions, that there was a ?■' deliberate'scheme'to defraud- Mr. Eob- •• inson of .the £125,000 on the part of - three men:- 1- '"-"- : " ■ ■ -■/'. ■'/- ' ) (1) The British officer (alleged, to he a bogus officer);:who was aide : de-camp tb: ■ ". ■ the Eastern ;potentate ,\ (2) the .managing clerk to the..solicitors who acted .for", Mr. i Robinson ' in 1 the proposed divorce pro- -; feedings; and (3) Mr. Montague. Noel .: Newton,- referred, to. by Lord, Halsbury :"; »s "the""greatest scoundrel-unhung." p ■ I "PLOT: WITHIN A PLOT."'- , V " Far wider was the contention of the |; Midland Bank. They said, and called ■ sviderice to substantiate.their statement, that there was a calculated, clever, and infamous plot to blackmail the Eastern ' potentate, "Mr. A.", out of his £150,000, i '■'. concerning which Robinson and his wife '. Sad full .knowledge! ■. Therefore, \ they „ said—while iclenying any sort" of banki'evs' negligence—that Robinson was in noway entitled to recover.'; The fact :.that .Robinson and his wife were defrauded .."ay his feliow-conspiratdrg was, they maintain, no concern of theirs. ■The whole" case, as the bank reviewed* it, is a "plot within a plot"—a matter of there being no honour.among thieves ■ '—first,,the scheme to Jblackmail and rob . the Eastefri'potentate;'of his;£lso,oooby. •:. * nis* being caught in incriminating circum- ■:';■ stances with Mrs. 'Robinsori >in a -Paris hotel; and, second, a ' conspiracy, of', • three of the plotters to make Robinson : Shink that the sum of £25,000 was all ; chat had been received from:/'Mrl: A,"-, and so keep the balance for division imong' themselves. '-. fi^ :■'■'""■"'.■■' .; DISTRIBUTION OF .THE MONEY. .• ■' According to Sir John Simon, for'the :,- Midland. ,Bank,. the money, secured, by v ihe blackmail of "Mr., A." was divided - sh us :—The A.D.C., :£45,000'; Newton. £44,000 ; Hobbs, £44,000; : Robinson; . £4000; Mrs. Rohinson, £4000 ;' ■ Mrs:. ' Bevan, £3000. . ■ . . . ■ These, amounts, as they affected Mr. ■>' Robinson, his wife, and . Mrs. Bevan, . urere denied, by. the plaintiff's side., Mrs. . Robinson, indeed, statad in ■ Court that she received a packet of £25,000 in notes, '•■ ifter the interview wih her husband in Hobbs's office, from which Hobbs deiuced £4000 for his legal-costs, without ; . giving her any- form of receipt. She took. ■ the remaining £21,000, wrapped up in' newspaper, back to herhotel,.and threw ; the bundle on her-'bed, while she sat down and wonderedhow she could return;, the money to "Mr. A." A little later; the A.D.C. Was announced, and-she: gave orders for him to be admitted,, hoping that he would be able '--to take her back to "Mr. A." Instead of. the A.D.C., however, Newton ap- . peared.;'He-was-alleged to'have''seized £10,000 of the .'"notes';' ■''saying": ■'-" You, don't .think you ;are going to get away with' all that. If you breathe a word •;' to a living soul I,will have you done in." When she tried.to prevent'him taking' '-'". the money, he sent, her spinning across the room. Mrs. Robinson, admitted in her evidence that the man Newton, ■ whom she first met by >introduction;, at the Berkeley Hotel, had been her lover. "But"after a while,":she said,-''he treated me abominably.' 1 ■'. .--.'• / : THE GREATEST _ROGUE. OF ALL.. Sir-John-pursued a dual: line in his questioning. He endeavoured to show that neither Robinson nor the woman was worthy of credit, and that they were both prime movers in the plot-to black-- • mail the Eastern potentate. „' :■..■:■:■' Cheques that', had not been met were handed to Robinson,- and ha was asked'to: - identify, his signature to them. It was -suggested- directly that he lived' partly __on the bountjr'^pf his "pretty wife," and. ■thathe^urp^elyab'serited'liinis'elf from' his house in Chapel street during his ; -rwife's 'friendship with Mr. A., because '■■ he was not. the type of man, who might ;; be. the .husband of a'-society woman: 'A \~ more presentable husband; according to :' Sir John Siniori, was needed for the ■h plot, and,. therefore, Newton was _se-.. ; j lected for .the part. :. ■ . -...-' >; Judge and counsel, by their " statei> ments,..agreed that of all the jogues'.'iii: i) this sordid .underworld story by fair f; the greatest was the British officer, de-;-tailed to protect the.person and safe- *•■"■ guard the interests of the young East- *;' errt potentate, who yet, in fact, was a -main instrument to his undoing-and to >' his parting-.-.with £150,000 as hush :,; money. -' ■ j! "UTTERLY ABANDONED PEOPLE." \':- In-his'sp'eech for the bank, Sir John 'i, Simon thus described what he termed ;- "this. round : table ■ conference of utterly '..abandoned people." -Mrs. Robinson, an ;; immoral^-woman, whose income from Al- ;; bert and; C 0.." had not. been much more ■\than £300. or £400. a year,, and yet who ""was"spending 'at an enormously highf rate. 'Mr. Robinson, the complacent, . ---iriterimtteiifc-' husband, who from time to time suffered eclipse when there rose in the'firmam?nt some other personpJity more splendid or more golden. He.'Hke those who suffer from eclipses, is always ready to back again when ' the

event lias happened and the gold has been paid. Mrs. Bevan—another woman admittedly immoral, who gave herself to the native secretary. Newton—no better than the rest of them, so far.as conspiracy was concerned, but at any rate-a man who has gone into the witness-box and faced 'cross-examination, and ,'hjis told you fairly and squarely why he "has done it. TheA.D.C—prince of villains. I won't say "another ■ word about him. Lastly, Hobbs—Hobbs who yesterday may; have stood up to the bowling. His present score is £44,000 not out. But ■ he ( mar be bowled out some day. } \ " "Did you ever hear of six people more fit for treason, stratagem, and spoil ? ' I am afraid you and I; who have se^n,, 1 the.curtain ;lifted, which discloses a corner of this horrible underworld,' must burn with shame." . "I-ask-the jury to Bay that Mrs. Robinson was not in any plot," said Lord ■Halsbury; in the course of his speech., "She was doing very well with Mr. A. As she has said, she had to ask no help ifrbnwariy^man or woman for.anything 'she >¥aht£d to get out of Mr. A. When' these people came in they destroyed her chance altogether. She was to give lip .the. position (according to the conspiracy story) of going out to India with Mr. .A;.with all his vast wealth for £4000." ',- -■.■■■ ■ . .' ; .-. In summing up, Lord Darling said that ..after. what Robinson, had. done,: was; he. ■entitled ta-piekvup-the- smallest pebble and. throw..it at Newton? Newton said he;.was"ah\honourable man amongst'his friends—very nice 'friends too—Mr. Hobbs—(laughter)—Mr.' Robinson, and Mrs.'"Robinson. ' "If you are to reject Newton because; he did a dishonest thing," continued Lord Darling, "how can you accept Robinson, who has done a grossly', dishonourable thing?' Judge them both by_, the same standard an^d try them by your common-sense. .Having seen Newton:and;Robinson and;all the. other witnesses, take, the case into your consideration,'give to each of them 'sucli weight "as" you think 'they deserve, neither more' nor :less, and let me have, your answers to these' questions', which. I now hand you." \ ' ■•■ '.THE JURY'S FINDINGS. ■..:"■■ ', ' The jury, were away :for more than' .an.hour., on_ their.return; they answered: the questions as follow :— . . . ... .;.(I);.'Was there, a scheme, or conspiracy' ; to : catch. J'Mr. .A.".- with Mrs. Robinson ■witl)' a view of getting money from- ■ Mr. A."? —Yes; :. '. . . ' . .". . (2) : Was the plaintiff a-party to 1 anysuch scheme or. consph-acy?—No.. " '. .(3) Was, Mrs. Robinson a party to any' such scheme or conspiracy ?—No. . ' (4) Was '.'Mr, A." .induced 'to-part with; the " two ■ cheques from fear or .alarmt-^yes.. .. . . A :. .. ' „ " Lord Darling then said that it would be necessary -to,put further questions' to the. jury. He, thought that the jury' would not have much difficulty in answering them, and very briefly ..referred to the evidence affecting; them. '; The further, .questions, with the' answers, were:—; v ,•';.'•■ ■ ;'; ' " (1) Were the words", "Pay"' to order of Mr. 0. Eobinso'n. Appleton and Co.,'; on the r ,back of. the cheque dated 30th December,v 1919,..written 1 by-some person as agent for , Appleton and' Co?— No. '■■ .'■;■■'■■ -' ■;"■''' '■•' -,' ■" ■ .■ ' .•-. (2) Had Hobbs and/or Appleton and Co.' any intention of-'transferring ,the •whole rights,: if. any, in the cheque for £150,000 to.Jßobinson?—No. J (3) Werev the rights in the. cheque eyer transferred by Hobbs, and/or Appleton and -Co 1.; to; the palintiff?—No answer;, ;r"'-' ■;■ • ■-.;,'. rv■'.- :■' v, : ' --' ■ -.< ■■:■■, !..■ f-fwi^ f*-*^™ oWing:0Wing: out^;th;e ,£150,000 cheque obey the mandate uri,der which^they received and cleared the cheque?— Yes.., „''.\ . .'■. -, , •'. : (5). Did Hobbs, ''-in : drawing out; the money, purport to act under the same authority as when he paid'it in?— Yes