“MR X,” INVENTOR

Evening Star, Issue 23500, 14 February 1940, Page 10

“MR X,” INVENTOR

" SOLD PATENT TO BRITISH ADMIRALTY " TWO MEH CHARGED WITH FRAUD THIRTY-SEVEN WITNESSES AND MANY EXHIBITS [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, February 14. The hearing commenced in the Magistrate’s Court to-day of a case in which Harvey Maitland Chrystall, an engineer, of Hutt, and Gordon Percy Aston, of Christchurch, were jointly charged with that on or about October 1, 1937, and on divers dates between October 1, 1937, and July 3, 1939, at Wellington and other places in the Dominion, they conspired each with the other by deceit to defraud Hartley Roy Sellers of sums of money totalling about £6,765. Mr Lusford, S.M., was on the Bench. Before calling evidence Detectivesergeant McLennan said there would be 37 witnesses and a very large number of exhibits.

APPLICATION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. Mr C. E. Purchase, appearing for Aston, asked that the accused be given their liberty on their own recognisance during the hearing of the case. He also asked that owing to the sensational nature of the case publication of the evidence be suppressed. “ I appreciate it is a most unusual request,” he said, “ but this is an unusual case, firstly because of the very large amount involved and the rather sensational nature of the alleged false statements said to be in evidence. The person alleged to have been defrauded is unfortunately unable to, give evidence, and much of the evidence must be circumstantial.” He submitted that there was sufficient justification for the application. _ The Magistrate said there was no power to suppress evidence. The only power there might be was to exclude the public, including the "Press, from the preliminary hearing, which would automatically mean that no outside record of the evidence was taken.

Mr W. E. Leicester, who, with Mr R. TV. Peacock, appeared for Chrystall, also asked that bail he granted the accused on their own recognisance. “ So far as the application for suppression is conc&rned,’| he said, “ I regret I oannot associate, myself with my friend’s application so far as my own client is concerned. I deem it in his interests there should he no suppression of any of the facts.” The Magistrate said he would make an order for hail in the accuseds’ own recognisance, they to report to the police station each evening. In view of the different attitudes taken up by counsel and the nature of the charge, it would be impossible to consider granting the application for suppression of the evidence. Regarding the question of the admissibility of certain evidence which had been raised by both police and counsel, objections to such evidence would be noted, and he would subsequently hear counsel to See whether sufficient evidence had been legally admitted for the accused’ to be committed for trial.

THE FIRST WITNESS. Edward Augustine Batt, managing director of Edward A. Batt and Co,, manufacturer’s representatives, in evidence, said! that early in March, 1938, as the result of a conversation with PalliseT 1 , who had approached him for a special purpose, witness met Sellers and Chrystall at Sellers’s office. He was approached hy Sellers in connection with guaranteeing an overdraft for Sellers for £3,000. _ As a result of the conversation he visited) the office and found Chrystall and Palliser. Chrystall told the party he was interested with Sellers and a “ Mr X.,” an inventor, who had sold a patent to the British Admiralty for £280,000, and money was required to clear up sundry expenses prior to the Admiralty’s payment of £IOO,OOO on June 1 of that year. Chrystall explained that, owing to both he and the inventor being sworn under the Official Secrets Act the inventor’s name would not he divulged at that stage, hut the statement ho had made was absolutely accurate in every respect. Sellers said he was conversant with the whole matter, and had spent considerable time with the inventor and Chrystall at the experimental station at Tahanui, Nelson. Chrystall said up to that time approximately £BO,OOO had been spent on these experiments, and the patent at that time was the property of the Admiralty. He added that the .matter was of such secrecy that both he and the inventor could be “ put up against a wall and shot ” for divulging anything about it. Witness said he was still not very enthusiastic, but undertook to provide the finance, £3,000, for a period of three months, in the form of guarantee at the Bank of Australasia. Sellers referred at that time to “X ” as an engineering genius. Chrystall said he was directly associated with “ X ” as a civil engineer. Chrystall told witness of a Mr Levine’s activities. Levine, he said, had worked with “X ” for some time with _ the experiments, and subscribed a considerable sum, said to be £IOO,OOO. He was stated to have sailed for England for completion of the negotiations with the Admiralty, but en route was killed in the engine room of a ship. Witness added that as a result of what Chrystall said Sellers also agreed to the proposition. Witness continued that as a result of the interview he took Sellers and Chrystall to his solicitors, and a member of the firm drafted an agreement on the lines indicated. £6,000 sterling was to be paid to his credit at the Commercial Bank of Australia in London. The accused Chrystall stood surety. The agreement was completed the following day. Detective-sergeant M'Lennan handed in to the court a document which he said was the agreement. After they left the solicitor’s office, said witness, he asked Chrystall for information about the without divulging anything under his oath. Chrystall said the invention was designed to divert from its course a torpedo fired by an enemy machine, and it was absolutely infallible. Witness expressed his gratification that the Admiralty had such a valuable means of defence. Chrystall did not demonstrate the infallibility of the invention. Some weeks later, in May, 1938, he went to Sellers’s office to meet “ Mr X.,” Sellers, Palliser, and Chrystall. A man was introduced to him as Mr Gordon Aston, and he was stated to be “ Mr X.” “ Immediately after I was introduced to Aston, who was partly intoxicated,” said witness, “ he attacked me in these words. He said: ‘ I have had more trouble over your lousy £3,000 than I have had over deals of a hundred thousand or more.’ I turned to Sellers and said: ‘Can you explain this man’s

attitude towards me?’ Sellers replied he could not.” Witness said Aston took a cheque from his pocket and said: “I will pay you out.” Witness said he would be very pleased and would accept, and Aston then said: “ Yes, with a discount of 8 per cent.,” which witness disagreed with. Aston was in a semiintoxicated condition, and said he was working night and day on his experiments, and was not going to be worried about anything. Witness said the agreement was not carried out with Sellers in June, and an extension to August, 1938, was agreed to. A fresh agreement was drawn up on Juno 17, 1938, witness continued. The signatures were those of Sellers and Chrystall, Between June and August, 1938, witness met the accused Aston in Sellers’s office. On this occasion Aston was quite sober. He drew on paper an outline of a ship’s hull and said the patent consisted of attaching polarised metal plates to various parts of the hull. The plates were wired to electrical machinery which, when set in motion, would deflect the enemy torpedo from its course. Aston said the idea was infallible, and that he had gone to England at the request of the Admiralty. When witness expressed surprise at his early return, Aston said on reaching Sydney he had been diverted to Singapore, and that the Admiralty provided him with a plane for the purpose. He also said that the Admiralty bought his patent outright for £280,000, and that ■ the Admiralty was advancing him 10s in the £ on his supplies of metal, and was holding the balance to his credit. Witness said Aston then described another apparatus designed to detect and distinguish surface and underwater boats up to a distance of 400 miles. A great deal of money due to him was being held by the Admiralty until he completed/experiments on this detector, which would be within a month or so. Continuing, witness said another agreement was made out oh August 19, 1938, the signatories being Sellers and Chrystall. About October 11, 1938, Sellers showed witness a note (produced) from Chrystall that Aston was returning from Sydney. A few days later witness was present at a discussion in Sellers’s office, the others present being Palliser and the accused Aston. Aston said’ definitely that final payment would he made ou March 31, 1939. He had a large motion picture camera slung over his shoulder, and said the Admiralty had been so pleased with his work that it had presented him with, a camera. He had been out on destroyers during the trip to Australia, and said the anti-torpedo apparatus had been used on them with complete success. He also said a great honour had been conferred on him by the Admiralty •in granting him the right to fly the White Ensign on his launch at Nelson. The British Government had sent him an urgent request to establish plant in Australia because of the risk of the English plant being destroyed from the air and also because the Admiralty wished to equip a large number of ships at Singapore.