CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ALLEGED

Evening Star, Issue 23501, 15 February 1940, Page 17

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ALLEGED

DEVICE TO DEFLECT TORPEDOES CHARGES AGAINST TWO MEN LATE RACING SECRETARY THE ALLEGED VICTIM [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, February 14. The. hearing was continued in the afternoon of a case in which Harvey Maitland Chrystall, an engineer, of Hutt, and Gordon Percy Aston, of Christchurch, wore jointly charged 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 Koy Sellers of sums of money totalling about £6,765. Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., was on tho Bench. Giving evidence in the morning, Edward Augustine Batt, managing director of Edward A. Batt and C 0.., manufacturer’s representatives, said that early in March, 1938, as' the result of a conversation with Palliser, who had approached him for a special purpose, witness met Sellers and Chrystall at Sellers’s office. He was approached by 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.” (later stated to be Aston), 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 Juno 1 of that year. Chrystall explained that, owing to both he and the inventor being sworn under the Official Secrets Act, tho inventor's name would not be divulged at that stage, but 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 tho 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 tho property of the Admiralty. Witness said the patent was stated to be. a device for deflecting torpedoes. Witness said he had seen the two accused on numerous occasions after October, 1938. The meetings all took place in Sellers’s office, and Sellers and Palliser were sometimes present. Frequent reference was made by Aston to the patent, and he said on one occasion that the Awatea had been equipped at Sydney with the torpedo-deflecting apparatus. At the Admiralty’s request ho had established a plant in New South Wales. From time to time Aston mentioned other large interests he said he .had in Australia. When WoolcottForbes disappeared, Aston told Sellers that his financial arrangements had thereby been completely upset and he fixed the sum that Woolcott-Forbes was concerned with at £BO,OOO. Subsequently he modified the sum considerably, "but .lie .said the development 'wo u 1 d"f 11 rlli ef’d el a y th e final settlement with Sellers.

Mr Leicester objected to reference being made to Woolcott-Forbes in connection with Chrystall.

Witness said that his evidence on this' point related to Aston and in no wav concerned Chrystall. I'he magistrate reserved the point. , Asked if he had gone to England in connection with his contract with the Admiralty, Aston replied that he had not, but arrangements had been made through a titled agent whom he named, witness continued. Witness, however, was unable to find the name in ‘ Who’s Who.’ ' Witness said it was clear from what the accused said that all their experiments had been carried out at Blind Bay, Nelson, and also at premises at the Hutt, wnich witness later found to be a tea room and confectionery shop. Aston frequently said he had to report daily to the Admiralty, and also that ho moved from one place to other. He reported by means of what he described as an earth circuit, by which he spoke through the earth itself, and could bo connected to any telephone he desired. DISAPPEARANCE OF SELLERS. Witness said that matters drifted! until payment was due on March 31, 1939. On the evening of July 3, 1939, witness met Aston, Who asked him if ho had seen Sellers. It was a Monday, and witness said!, he had not seen Sellers since the previous Friday, Aston said: “ Well, ho has disappeared.” He added that Sellers had left him at 10 o’clock that morning. He then asked witness if he knew that Sellers had embezzled Racing Conference money. Witness replied in the negative, and said to Aston: “ If anything has happened to Hoy Sellers you have a big responsibility to shoulder.” He (witness) said; “ What has transpired between you and Sellers that has caused! him to disappear? ” and Aston replied: “Nothing.” Aston further said that, he had money arriving next morning representing the money that Sellers had embezzled, and would pay it in before the Racing Conference met next day. Aston told witness that Chrystall had left Sydney for London to collect £27,000 or £28,000 from the Bank of England. “Is it not rather strange that Chrystall should go to England and not you?” witness asked Aston, who, replied that ho had provided Chrvstall with all the necessary documents and! authority to draw the money. “ I questioned the statement and told him I did not see how the Bank of England had anything to do with these payments,” said witness. “Ho assured mo this was the source from which the money would! he paid. He was not sure of the day Chrystall had sailed and did not know the name of the ship.” Aston subsequently told witness he wanted him to understand they were all entirely separated! now. “ Sellers, Batt, Palliser, Chrystall, and Aston have no connection with each other,” Aston told witness, and added that it was entirely in the hands of_ Chrystall as to whether he paid 15s in the £ of what was due or whether he paid nothing at all.' Witness then told! Aston he could well understand .Sellers disappearing after what Aston had said. “ I told him.” said witness, “ that the amount of £20,000 was a mere fraction of the original amount of £280,000 so frequently referred to as the total amount. He then said; ‘The Jews in Australia got the rest.’ ” A telephone conversation some days later, when Aston rang from Christchurch, was also described by witness. Aston said that one or two very surprising facts had arisen in Christchurch

over tho disappearance of Sellers. Aston said he had paid Sellers £4,000 recently, and could show witness a receipt. Part of this money, said Aston, was to release the £3,000 witness had guaranteed. Aston then asked if witness had noticed anything peculiar about Sellers mentally, and witness replied in tho negative, adding that Sellers was terribly worried. Aston also said that Sellers was not frank with witness and Palliser, and that tho £750 he had received from Sellers was in exchange for Australian notes that ho (Aston) had brought ever for him. “ He then informed me that tho police had interviewed him, and he was coming to Wellington the following week, and would bring the receipt Sellers had given him for £4,000,” witness continued, “He did not come to Wellington, and I have not seen the receipt.” When Chrystall returned from Australia on August 7, 1939, he met Palliser and witness by appointment, and was questioned about the money involved, saich witness. Chrystall said he had come over to see if he could arrange to get tho money. When asked if he still insisted that ho and Aston bad a contract with the British Admiralty, ho said, “ Yes, certainly I do.” Ho was then asked if he would he prepared to say that on oath in the event of court proceedings. With sonic reluctance, said witness, he inferred that because of being sworn to secrecy he would not make that statement in court, but would make it privately to the judge. RACING CONFERENCE TRUST MONEY. Witness said he eventually lost patience with Chrystall and told_ him it was a sheer waste of time keeping such an appointment. When asked what he had done with tho cheque Sellers had issued against the Racing Conference trust money he did not answer for some time. When asked if it had been utilised to pay a mortgage on a Nelson property he said he was not prepared to say. Cross-examined by Mr Leicester, witness said the original guarantee of £3,000 in March, 1938, was to have been repaid in three months. For his accommodation of the guarantee witness was to have received £6,000. When the extension for three months was agreed on it was stated that witness was to have received a further £I,OOO as additional accommodation. He' agreed that such a return would have been unusual for a gilt-edged investment. t

Evidence of having refused to advance money to Chrystall was given by Charles Christopher Davis, of Christchurch, a director of the Cockatoo Dock and Engineering Company, Sydney. He had known Chrystall for several years, he said, and in October, 1937, the accused asked him to advance £SOO towards a venture ho and some unnamed associate had undertaken. Chrystall offered to repay £SOO plus 50 per cent, within 10 or 15 days. He Was so secretive that witness told him he was not interested. Chrystall also stated that they had £25,000 in the Bank, of England, deposited there by the British Admiralty as the first deposit of a very large sum. In the meantime, he said, this money could not be used. Chrystall returned a few days later, said witness, and told him that his associate was a man named Aston and thev had an invention which diverted torpedoes from ships. During tests all the torpedoes fired at a British warship which had been fitted with the device were diverted. _ _X.ELEEHftNE.JO ADMIRALTY. Witness said that when he asked the accused how he had learnt the result of the tests so soon Chrystall said he had been advised by telephone. “I told him,” said witness, “ that neither the British Admiralty nor the War Office talked of matters of that sort over the telephone. He said they had their own telephone system directly connected with the Admiralty in London, and it was in use every evening. He said he hud been talking with the Admiralty till 4 o’clock on the morning he called. I told him I did not believe the story, and that if he had. anything as good as that telephone itself he need not bother with anything else.” Witness added that ho told the accused that if he believed the story himself somebody had him by the leg. Chrystall seemed very agitated at this and walked up and down the office making a great deal of. fuss, so much so that witness thought he was demented, and had practically to turn him out of the office. Sellers was one of his closest friends, said Ernest Pallisor, land agent, Wellington. He helped Sellers financially during the latter part of 1937 and the early part of 1938, and advanced him several sums up to £SOO. No form of security was given or asked. In March, 1938, Chrystall, in the presence of witness and Sellers, said that between £2,000 and £3,000 was required to pay up certain liabilities before arrangements with the British Admiralty wero completed. Chrystall described the invention, said witness. At this stage ho knew the inventor ns ‘‘ Mr X.” Chrystall said that substantial payment had been made by the British Government, representing 10s in the pound of the total payment due to them. Witness said ho told the accused it was quite impossible for him to lend money or give a guarantee. He was informed by Chrystall that they did not want the cash immediately, but required a guarantee. Witness then told him he would discuss the question with one or two personal friends. In March witness said Sellers gave him a promissory note for £I,OOO, payable at the Commercial Bank of Australia, London, in consideration of £3OO previously advanced by witness. Witness added that he did not ask for the promissory note. Witness said his first meeting with Aston was in May, 1933, and on that occasion the accused was the worse for liquor and most offensive. Some time between June and August, 1938, said witness, he was present at a conference in Sellers’s office. Also in attendance were Aston, Batt, and Sellers. Witness stated 1 that Aston had said that Sellers would receive more than £2(3,000, and would be a wealthy man. The hearing, which is expected to last throe or four days, was adjourned till to-morrow.