FRAUD CHARGES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20242, 9 May 1940, Page 7

FRAUD CHARGES

ALLEGED INVENTION ADVANCES TO SELLERS CROWN WITNESS’S STORY TALKS WITH ACCUSED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The hearing of evidence for the prosecution was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Smith, at the trial of Gordon Percy Aston and Harvey Maitland Chrystall on charges of conspiracy arising out of the alleged anti-torpedo invention. The Crown prosecutor, Mr. W. 11. Cunningham is conducting the prosecution, with him Mr. W. R. Birks. Aston is represented by Mr. D. W. Russell, Christchurch, and Chrystall by Mr. W. E. Leicester, with him Mr. R. T. Peacock. A. C. Jessep said that at an interview on March 5, 1938, Chrystall said there was no written agreement between himself and Sellers or between Aston and Sellers. Chrystall also said quite definitely that they had been conducting experiments at Nelson for some time. He refused to give any details and witness had some difficulty obtaining the name of the inventor. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester, witness said the matter had never reached the stage of fixing an actual premium for the suggested guarantee of £3OOO by Mr. Nathan, but Chrystall suggested that if a guarantee could be given to Sellers a premium of £2OOO payable in London could be given. Witness mentioned that in the discussions with Sellers and Chrystall he had been invited to believe a number of things which, as a professional man, be felt he could not believe in the ab-, sence of documentary evidence. Loans to Sellers Ernest Palliser gave evidence that he had known Sellers for 25 years and was one of his closest friends. Witness first met Chrystall at Sellers’ office in January, 1938. At that time witness had lent Sellers numerous sums totalling £SOO. He had no idea for what purpose Sellers was borrowing. The security was a series of 1.0.U.'5. They were just personal loans.

He had a conference with Sellers and Chrystall in March, 1938, when he first learned what Sellers had been borrowing for and that further money was required. Sellers asked if witness would be prepared to act as guarantor at the bank for an amount to be advanced to Chrystall and Mr. X. Witness intimated he could not give it. Chrystall gave a fairly clear statement of the patent and its purpose, and indicated it had been sold to the Admiralty for £280,000. He gave the name of the inventor as Mr. X and said the Admiralty had already paid over £BO,OOO which had been used in the purchase of steel.Witness said he had arranged for Sellers and Chrystall to meet Mr. Batt and he was present when the meeting took place. The same story was told. Witness had nothing more to do with the arrangement between Mr. Batt, Sellers and Chrystall. About the middle of March, he received a promissory note for £IOOO, payable in London, for advances he had made tb Sellers. The note was endorsed by Chrystall. Witness never asked for any consideration for his loans to Sellers. He was given the promissory note by Sellers who intimated that Chrystall was prepared to pay an extra £SOO. Witness said he first met Mr. X in May, 1938, with Mr. Batt, Sellers and Chrystall. Mr. X proved to be Aston. Share Estimated at £26,000 Witness said he extended the payment of his promissory note for £1240 to September 18. At a later meeting, Aston said the Admiraltyhad deposited £BO,OOO and the final payment would be made on the following March 31. Sellers' share was mentioned by Chrystall as £26,000. In October, Aston made a very definite statement that everything was finalised and the Admiralty required him to quadruple the plant to increase the production of metal. Subsequently, Aston said the Awatea was fitted with special plates at Sydney and told them they could see her at the wharf. Witness was not paid the money on March 31, 1939, and on the following day, he was in Sellers’ office when Sellers rang Chrystall in Christchurch. The effect of what Chrystall said was that a cabled statement by Lord Chatfield regarding the anti-submarine device ought to satisfy any doubts they might have as to the genuineness of the patent.

The witness said that after Sellers had disappeared. Chrystall returned from Sydney. Witness told him that he thought he and Aston were t.wo of the biggest rogues under the sun. “I may have used stronger words,” he said. “I was very annoyed and had learned of the happenings of which we had had no knowledge. He still pleaded that everything was all right and that they were not what we thought they were.” Mr. Cunningham referred to a suggestion made to the police by Chrystall that Palliser and Batt were holding a pistol at the heads of the accused in order to get payment and that they wanted a prompt settlement so that they would not be drawn into Sellers’ inquest, and further that a 24-hour ultimatum was given of settlement or arrest and prosecution. Witness: Deliberate lies. The answer is that we had nothing to lose in exposing this matter. We had lost a friend, and in the interests of society it was our duty to go to the police. It was not a question of money.