“MISTER A”

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 22 November 1924, Page 5

“MISTER A”

AN INDIAN RULER.

WEALTHY LITIGANTS. , A WIFE’S INDISCRETION. [ln last night’s Star an extraordinary case in which a wife, an Eastern potentate and a wrathful husband were involved was reported. Further startling details were received this morning.] BY CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT LONDON, Nov. 21. Charles Ernest Robinson, in the King’s Bench Division, is- claiming £125,000, the balance of a sum of £150,000, from the Midland Bank as money alleged to have been received by defendants for his use Or alternatively as . damages for alleged negligence. Defendants denied negligence or receiving the money for plaintiff’s use, and also alleged that plaintiff was concerned with others in a conspiracy to obtain money by blackmail and was not entitled to recover. (Received Nov. 22, 9.15 a.m.) LONDON, Nov. 21. The Midland Bank case has been resumed. The plaintiff, cross-examined by Sir John Simonj denied that there was any trap. He said lie never discussed the Paris incident with his'wife, and denied that he ever asked Newton for proof of the Paris incident. Lord Darling said nothing would have induced him to keep a man’s name out of the proceedings simply because he was a person of high rank, but reasons of State not connected with the Tank at all were responsible for this course being taken. It was most important that scandal should not be caused where this potentate lived. The name of his aide-de-camp was also omitted, because mention would permit the identification of the ruler. ,

A surprise was caused by Halsbury, who, when re-examining the plaintiff/ called on Hobbs to produce three cheques with reference to which Hobbs had been subpoenaed. Hobbs said he did not have them. The Judge ordered Hobbs to be sworn in the witness box. Hobbs, replying to the Judge, said he was called to, produce the documents and put them in safe keeping, but he had not the cheques. All his papers were stolen from the office of his solicitors. Somebody paid £2O for them, and since witness had the documents there had been an attempt to break into his office. He had the documents photographed, but did not remember ever having the cheques and the pass book. The Judge said Hobbs must bring the documents to-morrow or explain. Mrs Robinson, examined, said she and hei! husband began to drift apart in 1914. Later she separated from her> husband, who in 1919 introduced her to Newton, who eventually seduced her. He wanted her to sell her business and securities and go away with him. He became violent''when she refused. Se described a meeting of members of “Mister A’s” suite. One of them invited her and a lady friend to meet “Mister A,“ with whom she became friendly, accompanying them to parties, theatres and dances. Their relationship eventually became guilty. It was arranged that she and a lady friend should accompany “Mister A’’ and his secretary to Paris. “Mister A’’ planned that they should go to India, herself as “A’s’’ misteress and her friend as 1 mistress to “A’s’’ secretary. She described a scene in Paris when Newton surprised her and “A’’ in a bedroom. She denied acknowledging then that Newton was her husband. She unaware that Newton was acquainted with her relations with “Mister A.”

Describing a meeting in Hobbs’ office, witness said Hobbs threw down a parcel of £25,000 in notes. Tier husband got in a temper with Hobbs. When her husband left he said there was nothing to worry about, but he wanted costs and took £4OOO, but he gave no receipt. She took the bnlance td a hotel. Newton entered her bedroom apd saw the parcel of notes on the bed. He said “Do not think you are going to keep the lot,” and threw her across the room when she tried to prevent him taking the money. She found afterwards that he had taken £IO,OOO. Witness v/erit to Paris to meet “Mister A.” At Monte Carlo a foreigner told her that Scotland Yard requested her to leave immediately. She and a friend went to Monte Carlo, hut did not see “Mister A.” She never saw him again. Witness denied that her husband was living on her earnings, or that she had led an immoral life. The case was adjourned.