"COUNTESS" AND CONJUROR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9193, 6 May 1893, Page 2 (Supplement)

"COUNTESS" AND CONJUROR.

A REMARKABLE CONSPIRACY CASE. At the Westminster Police Court on Friday, March 16, Hugh Simmons Lynn, a conjuror, who so mo years ago performed, in Hew Zealand under the title of "Dr. Lynn," and Esther Gardiner, knewa as Countess Monsanto, were charged with conspiring to obtain and obtaining the sum of £2000 between August 12, 1891, and January 9, of the present year, by means of fraud and false pretences, from Mrs. Elizabeth Mary Baynton Reed, (if Albert Gale. Mr. Arthur K jwton, for the prosecution, said his client, a lady of middle-age and considerable ix tana, residing at Albert Gate, had beer the victim of very clever conspirators. (a ji diner, who pretended she was the Counted Monsanto, but who had already been son!; to prison for fraud, called, on prosecutrix, it 30, Albert Gate, and negotiated with hur as to taking her house, which was to let . Her tale was plausible, and the prosecutrix accepted her,' eventually, as a sort of boarder, and through her Griffiths wo introduced. The woman gave out that Griffiths was a gentleman well known in the city. Eventually prosecutrix got tired of keeping Gardiner as a visitor or boarder, and got rid of her. Mr?. Reed never obtained a penny from tho woman, a bill for £30 odd which she accepted, the body of it being in the handwriting of Griffiths.(aliaß Davis), being dishonoured. Griffiths called afterwords, and, speaking of his remunerative business at 11, Queen Victoria street, iuduced her to part with £1200. The iady eventually became terrorised and frightened at the way •'tatters worked out. Griffiths threatened to make her bankrupt, and said that unless she acted as he desired she would be ruined. In her extremity she consulted Dr. Lynn, but instead of helping her it turned out that he worked with the other conspirators. He professed to be able to get men of position to come in the directorate, and generally advised the unfortunate prosecutrix so that she parted with another £BQO, making £2000 in all. Prosecutrix, an elderly lady, substantiated the statement of her counsel. After advancing £1200 to Griffiths she signed a deed of partnership. She did not; understand at the time what she signed. She declared that a clause providing that she should contribute the whole money to the partnership was not read to her at the time of signing. She accepted £200 worth of jewellery from Griffiths as interest. Dr. Lynn had promised to help her to get her money back by forming a limited liability company, lie said he knew many wealthy city men. Mr. Newton put in the memorandum of the articles of association of the company, Davis, Henderson, and Co. The object of the company was to buy and sell and deal in stocks and shares and do agency and commission business. The capital was £10,000, divided into 2000 shares of £5 each, with power to increase, and the signatories were Mr. C. Pearson Pritchard, solicitor ; Mr. George Maffe, solicitor ; Mr. Edward Walter Evelyn, solicitor's clerk; Mr. Edward Hadley Moore, described as a gentleman ; Mrs. Helen Griffiths, of 23, Hogarth Road, S.VV.; and the prisoners Herbert Horace Griffiths and Hugh Simmons Lynn, described as of Brighton, Devon. Mr. Biron (counsel for Griffiths) said that the lady's evidence differed materially from the information she had sworn to obtain the warrant.

Mr. Newton put in and read at this stage a memorandum found by the police at Lynn's lodgings, and recognised by prosecutrix as in Lynn's handwriting. The document was as follows — When I first spoke to Pritchard (solicitor) about Mrs. Heed his first words were, 'Ha 3 sho got any money? Can't you try to get £100 out of her? But you must doit gingerly.' He told me to get all her promises on paper, and I did bo, and each time 1 showed them to him he said, ' This is capital. You must get a sixpenny stamp on this,'or something of the sort. He often said, • She is a queer old girl, and you cannot depend upon her word or aotions.' I never did the slightest businass with Mrs. Reed without first consulting Mr. P. to see if all was in order. Ho wanted control of the £820 7s fid, and because he could nob got it he turned on me like a fiend." •

The prosecutrix said that when she signed the deed of partnership with the prisoner Griffiths in August, 1891, no clause was read to her to the effect that she could be called upon to provide £3000, further capital for the business. She afterwards found that there was such a clause in the deed. Griffiths referred to her when the company negotiations were in progress, and said that unless she found another £800 he could, under his powers, make her bankrupt, ',nd lose all she possessed by reason of 'the liabilities he might incur. Mr. Newton read a voluminous correspondence from solicitors and others threatening proceedings against the prosecutrix unless she paid more money, Lynn, through his solicitor in the first instance, claiming £60d for the trouble ho had been out to.

Prosecutrix said on February 8 Mrs. Gardiner, " the Countess," called on her and said that she regretted having introduced her to Griffiths, but believed at tho time that he was a strictly honourable* man. Mr. Button : When she first came to you at Albert Gate, did you ask her to stay with you a month or so as a friend? Prosecutrix (with indignation): What! A perfect stranger, with a lady's maid and a pug dog. (Laughter.) Never I She was only supposed to stay on till her sister came. Mr. Button : Do you know that this lady has been married twice—firstly, to tho Marquis de Monsanto? Witness: I never heard of it. She said that her sister was an illustrious personage—either a duchess or princess. Cross-examined by Mr. Biron: In 1874 she separated from her husband. Her trustees had managed her affairs since her father's death. She was quite unacquainted with business affairs. When Griffiths visited Gardiner at her (prosecutrix's) house she referred to him as her stockbroker, who managed all her affairs. In consequenoe of Griffiths' advice she wrote to the duchess at Nice, but the letter dame back marked " unknown." Up to that time witness believed that the female prisoner's sister was a duchess.

In renewed cross-examination Mrs. Reed said she was very indignant when she found that there was a clause in the partnership deed with Griffiths making her liable for £3000 additional capital, and her remonstrances led to the cancellation of the clause. A letter was read from Mrs Reed, in which she asked Griffiths to go with her to tho comedy. Counsel asked her whether that was business. She had said that her relations with Griffiths wero of a business character only. She admitted that this was not quite business. In February Griffiths married, and he and his wife stayed for a week at hor house. In Sep; tember sho wrote a letter to Griffiths, in which she said, " wo might have high tea, and go to Venice to-morrow." (Laughter.) Mr. Biron i Do you say that was business ? Prosecutrix: Hardly. In answer to other questions she said that even as late as last October sho wrote to Griffiths saying sho should be happy to see him to dinner to meet her brother, "the more he knew of whom the better." Her explanation of this was that she did not know as much about Griffiths then as she did now. Sho lost confidence in Griffiths in the autumn when he brought her jewellery for a bad debt, which ho valued at £200, and debited her profits accordingly. She did not want to take the jewellery, which was greatly overvalued. Sho had never spoken to Griffith!) since sho introduced Dr. Lynn to him"as a gentleman who would act for her in future." She consulted Lynn about hor business affairs, and told him she was anxious to form the stockbroking business into a public company, to got out of Griffiths' powor, and to gob her monoy back. The public company was Griffiths' idea.

Mr. Biron:.Tho capital was to be subscribed by the public. Yes, £10,000. I did not wish to nave anything to do with it unless it was a bona-fidc company, and I withdrew my name when I found it was not, and that the directors wore Griffiths, his wife, his clerk, and Dr. Lynn. I had employed Mr. Pritohard, solicitor, to form the company, being introduced to him by Lynn. Mr. Biron: Do you suggest that you were to be allowed to withdraw the £2000 you had paid Griffiths for the partnership ? Witness« Yes, after the company was well floated. (A laugh.) You had been receiving 18 per cent, for your money. Did you hipo to get a larger percentage? Decidedly not. I only wished my capital back again. She added that in the partnership deed with-Griffiths there

was no clause giving both of them power to draw £30 a month. She could not draw one shilling except v'.afc Griffiths gave her. ■ An adjournment was agreed to at this tape. Counsel asked for bail, which tho magistrate fixed at £300 each.