END OF TRIAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 113, 14 May 1940, Page 9

END OF TRIAL

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY

JUDGE SUMS UP

EVIDENCE ANALYSED

The. summing-up by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Co^rt today in the trial of Gordon Percy Aston and Harvey Maitland Chrystall occupied two hours and 20 minutes. The jury retired at 12.40 p.m.

The joint charges against the accused were conspiracy by deceit to defraud the late Hartley Roy Sellers of £6765, false pretences (two counts), theft, receiving, and attempted false pretences (two counts).

The Crown Jrrosecutor (Mr. W. H, Cunningham), with him Mr. W. R. Birks, conducted the prosecution.

Aston was represented by Mr. D. W. Russell, of Christchurch, and Chrystall by Mr. W. E. Leicester, with him Mr. R. T. Peacock. I THE HITLER PRINCIPLE. His Honour said that the jury had been listening patiently and carefully to a very strange story, the sort, of case that they might read of in fiction and perhaps think that such things did not happen in actual fact. It was a case that could be associated with centres' of larger population than this, but yet there had been witnesses saying that certain things were the ease. From the point of view of the Crown he supposed the story told to the jury j was one that received credence on the principle said to have been adopted by Hitler, that if apparently normal people were told an extraordinary story it seemed more likely that it would be believed than if those people were told some story not so extraordinary. The Crown had reduced the story to an indictment of seven counts. The main' count alleged that between October, 1937, and July 3, 1939, the two accused conspired with each other by deceit to defraud Sellers of sums of money totalling £6765. The essential thing to be proved by the Crown was an agreement by the accused to deceive and defraud. People who wilfully made statements that they knew j to be untrue could not complain if they were said to deceive another person. An agreement to deceive would not be proved by the evidence of the conspirators and what the Crown had to do was to bring forward the acts of the conspirators and such other evidence as could be got, and then say that the proper reasonable inference established by evidence reasonably adduced was that there had been conspiracy by decect to defraud. His Honour said he was going to direct the jury later on that they should not convict on the charge of stealing the cheque for £750; it was an alternative charge and the proper charge was one of receiving (the fourth count). The charge ot receiving contained three elements—the actual receiving, the theft of the cheque before the receiving, and knowledge by those who received it that it had been dishonestly obtained. QUESTION OF SANITX. The Crown had to satisfy the jury beyond all reasonable Soubt that the .accused, wfere guilty..; They musg be satisfied .in mind'and, conscience, must be morally certain; .and if they were not, on the evidence properly applicable, the accused were entitled to be acquitted. Corresponding with that principle was that everyone was presumed to be sane and know the consequences of his act. If a defence of insanity had been set up, the onus of proving that must be on the defence. A person was not to be convicted of an offence if he-was incapable of understanding the nature and. quality of his act. If it was set up in the case of-Chrystall that he did not know the nature and quality of the act, and did not know that what he was doing was wrong, the onus was on the defence to establish that. The' jury had to consider whether witnesses were biased. Many of the Crown witnesses had no interest at all in the case—the bank clerks and so on. It had been suggested that Batt and Palliser might have had a personal interest in the case and that therefore their evidence was> biased; but the jury saw both those men in the box and were able to ' judge whether their evidence had been coloured or not. The accused had made statements to the police and there were the reactions to the questions put to them to be considered. A particular point in the evidence was the nature of the letters received •from the naval authorities in England and Australia. The .writers of those letters could not be cross-ex-amined, but Paymaster-Captain Cooper had said that he would have expected the authorities to give a straight answer, and the jury could see the -reaction, of the accused to that. CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY. The main count, on which the whole of the evidence was brought before the jury, was the count of conspiracy, said his Honour. The count was based on the allegation that the two accused agreed, one with the other, and if the jury came to the conclusion that there was such an agreement, then the whole of "the evidence was relevant. If the jury found that one was not the agent of the other, then the only evidence properly admissible on the other charges was the evidence against both. The Crown's contention was that, having adduced all that evidence, the jury, as reasonable men using a man's mind, judgment, and conscience, must say that the accused did conspire to defraud Sellers. Counsel for Chrystall," on the contrary t said that Chrystall was a highly-reputable citizen who bore the highest character, and that it could not be said that a man of that kind did not believe in what he said. A further contention was that if Chrystall were not a highly-reputable citizen he was a "mug" and not a rogue. Which class were the jury going to put. the accused in? counsel had asked Whether Chrystall was a highlyreputable citizen or just a "mug," said his-Honour, the question was whether he had the -guilty agreement to deceive. • Counsel for Chrystall said it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that Chrystall did enter into the agreement, continued his Honour. Counsel for Aston asserted that there was no evidence that,Aston authorised Ghrystall to approach Sellers at all; or that Aston was the principal and Ghrystall the agent. Counsel for

Chrystall said that if Sellers was duped, why should not Chrystall have been duped also, but the other counsel said how could Sellers have been duped .when he knew all about it. In considering the rather difficult and unusual, but important, case, the first important thing to do was to consider the history of the mattei*, and the jury had to pay particular attention to the origin of the representations. It was known that each accused knew the other many years before 1937. Apparently in 1923, seventeen years ago, Chrystall took over the Christchurch agency of A. J. Park and Son, patent

attorneys, and Aston went to consult him about the old scheme of the alchemist for turning metals into gold. Dr.' Marsden had said the claims were false, but no attempt had been made to exploit that scheme. ACCUSED'S FINANCES. It was perfectly clear that during the latter part of 1937 Chrystall had no money, and was being supported by his family while in Christchurch. Aslon said in his replies to the police that thousands of pounds had passed through his hands before he met Sellers. He seemed to have needed all : the money he could get to put into his ' radio business, and he had added to his income by buying and selling peas in 1937. Sellers did not meet Aston . until he went down to Christchurch in 1937. but he had known Chrystall for a good while before that. Chrystall had said that before the latter end of 1937 he was a partner with : Aston in a patent of which the latter ; was the inventor. Aston was produced , later as the inventor. It was for the jury to conclude whether or not Chrystall and Aston were partners in an invention. The first question the jury : must ask themselves was, Did the in- ' vention have any existence in fact? Secondly, was it an invention, that had : actually been sold to the Admiralty? ' Next, were the two accused bound j under the Official Secrets Act, although ; neither of them had ever been to England? His Honour said he did not think he would be going too far if he ■ suggested that the jury might draw the • conclusion that no such invention ever ■ existed, that it had never been sold to the Admiralty, and that, neither of J the accused had ever been sworn under the Official Secrets Act. j Dealing with the evidence relating to events at Nelson, his Honour said that the witness Kyle had thought ' that Aston was the driving force and that Chrystall was more a tool, an employee than his actual partner. But, of course, if the jury thought that the > evidence showed that they had con- - spired, the fact that one was master and the other was. servant would not make the slightest' difference in law. REFERENCE TO LETTER. His Honour said that the letter Chrystall wrote to Davis was an extraordinary one if the jury took the view that there was no armaments contract and that the whole thing existed only in the'imagination. Right at the beginning, was Chrystall an .honest man who had become temporarily insane (of which there was no medical evidence whatever), or did he know that what he was saying was untrue? Was he a rogue or was he suffering from some delusion of such a kind that he really did not understand what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong? , There was no evidence of any real experiments having been carried out ' on the launch or at The Hut, and it ; was for the jury to conclude whether , or not there had been any experiments ( of the kind suggested. What was the situation between Aston. Chrystall, . and Sellers in December, 1937, when 1 the accused decided that they needed more money from Sellers? Sellers . evidently regarded Chrystall as a man he could trust. What, then, was Chrystall's attitude of mind when the gentlemen's agreement was entered into? i Was he of his own knowledge not : being a gentleman but deceiving Sellers by propounding something that < really existed only in the realm of i fancy, or was he a. lunatic who believed everything that was said? Of I the £1200 obtained at this time over 3 £1100 went into Aston's private J account.. Did the jury think that the t money went to conduct experiments 1 on any large scale or' not? Did Sellers i know what was happening to the £ money or was he simply content to take the statements of the accused? There was evidence from which it could be inferred that Sellers saw some •experiments in Nelsony but the refer-, ences were extremely scanty. After February, 1938, the drawings from Sellers's private account ceased-. Sellers by that time had paid out over £2200 to the accused, and the jury had. to decide how much- of that had ever gone in experiments. His Honour next dealt with the re- J: presentations made to Nathan, Palliser, s and Batt,,the destination of the various sums received by the accused through Sellers, and statements by c Aston regarding events overseas. He % also traversed the evidence concerning the cheques drawn on the Racing r Conference funds and asked the jury a to determine what Chrystall's atti- j tude of mind was at that time. f On April 5, continued his Honour, Sellers obtained £200 from Coltman, and £200 was lodged by Aston for transfer to his account in Nelson. Sellers drew £80 on the Racing Conference No. 2 account, and £80 was also banked by Aston. "Here we have a series of drawings," said his Honour. "What was Chrystall's attitude of mind with these moneys continuing to be drawn on the Racing Conference ac- t count and disposed of? Did he con- c tinue to think that all these cheques B drawn on the No. 2 Conference Ac- £ count and sent to Christchurch were <■ in order? You have to consider that j process of drawing and the cashing of j those cheques over this period. Was it honest or dishonest?" j MORTGAGE ON THE HUT. £ The day before Aston went to Sydney—May 15—there was a conference * at which it was stated that £750 was A required to pay off the mortgage on x The Hut property so that money could x be obtained from the Admiralty. The actual mortgage was for £1750. Was * the whole suggestion merely a state- l ment made on Aston's responsibility to give him more time or to pay for the trip to Australia? Aston returned 1 from Sydney on June 2. * Chrystall and Sellers met him in Auckland, and £ he said he had been unable to clear 1 the property of the £750. "It appears } that Aston must have induced Sellers, • or Aston and Chrystall must have, to 1 provide £750 out of the Racing Con- l ference account, presumably for the ' purpose of clearing this mortgage on '' The Hut property at Nelson, so that 1 money could be obtained from the 1 Admiralty," said his Honour. x The £750 was disposed of by the telegraphic transfer through the Commercial Bank of Australia of £710 from Chrystall to Aston on June 6. Aston's account in Christchurch was not sufficient to bear a £200 payment to Cash Radio, one of Aston's companies, but immediately after the receipt of the £710 that payment was met. The jury had to consider whether Chrystall and Aston had honest minds in that transaction. On June 16 there was an inquiry by the Racing Conference committee, when Sellers, j as he put it, was "on the mat" and j Chrystall was called in to explain mat- \ ters. "In short, was Chrystall con- - tinuing in a fixed belief that these things existed all through this period ] right up to the representations to the j Racing Conference or not? If he be- i lieved them at first, was a stage reach- { ed when he did not believe them and , he then made statements which he < knew to be false?" If the jury be- \ lieved that such a stage was reached, \ then' they should return a verdict of ] not guilty on the conspiracy -charge; as the charge traversed a period beginning on October 1, 1937. The Racing Conference gave Sellers fourteen days in which to square the account, and on June 16, the same day as the inquiry. Aston . and Chrystall i and a young woman (there was no 1 suggestion that she was taken for other \ than secretarial purposes) went to Syd- i ney. Chrystall stayed over there, but i Aston returned on July 1, and he had 1 those last and tragic conferences with t Sellers in the Carlton Hotel. There \ was a tragic story and it" might be that 1 the jury woul<l dwell tod much on the i

later events because they were tragic; but a great deal that had been said about July 2 and 3 had no particular relation to events of an earlier date. WHAT KIND OF MAN? It was on the night of Sellers's disappearance that Aston told Batt that all the parties were separated and that it rested with Chrystall as to whether he (Chrystall) would pay Batt 5s in the £ or nothing. What kind of man was Aston? The jury might come to the conclusion that he was interested in strange things and that he was a peculiar kind of individual. He started off by saying that he could turn metals into gold, he then became interested in electricity and radio, and then the jury found this marvellous scheme which they would be quite entitled to consider had no existence in the realm of fact whatever. He went on to exploit it and to get large sums of money which went into Cash Radio and his business in Nelson.

What kind of man was Chrystall? The jury had been reminded that during the war he was shell-shocked and there was evidence that he was in a mental home. For years he was a consulting engineer in Christchurch and representative of a firm of patent agents, and was consulted by Aston on the process for turning metal into gold. Then there was" the fact that he took an interest in public bodies. Three years ago he gave up his practice; no doubt he heard from Aston about the invention, and the jury had to decide to what extent he associated himself with it.

His Honour then traversed the individual counts, repeating that if Chrystall was found to have believed in the invention in the early stages the charge of conspiracy must fail. On the other charges it had to be decided whether Chrystall was the innocent tool of Aston, or whether, he knew that false pretences were being practised. The third charge, that of stealing the cheque for £750 drawn on the Racing Conference, should be dismissed by the.jury.

The jury then retired and had not returned at the time of going to press,