RECEIVING STOLEN MONEY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18964, 11 March 1925, Page 9

RECEIVING STOLEN MONEY.

lIOBBS SENT TO GAOL. ' TWO YEARS' HARD LABOUR. INDIAN POTENTATE'S CHEQUE. By TeleEmph—Press Association —Copyright. (Received 10.5 p.m.) Keuler. LONDON. Mar. 0. William Cooper Hobbs, the solicitor s accountant. who was charged with receiving Sir Hari Singh's cheque for £150.000 after it had been stolen in I"ranee, has been sentenced tn two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Sir 11. 11. Curtis-Bennett. K.C., counsel for the accused, in addressing the jury, referred to the absence of Sir Hari. The latter, lie said, was the real accuser and prosecutor in the case, but accused had not been given an opportunity of confrontinn him in the. box. The whole fabric of the case against Ifobhs depended on the story of one of the biggest and cleverest scoundrels who ever gave evidence. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Travers Humphreys said the prosecution would have liked to have, called Sir Hari if it had been possible. What could he have proved, however ? He had never seen Hobbs in his life. Mr. Justice Avory, in his summing up, said the jury were only concerned to determine whether Ilobbs was a party to the conspiracy, if they concluded that a conspiracy had existed between Newton and Arthur. In view of Newton's admissions that be was an accomplice in a wicked conspiracy and had sworn a false affidavit the jury would not be able to act on his evidence except where it was corroborated by testimony which implicated Hobbs. It was much easier to deal with a rogue who admitted he was a rogue than with a hypocrite who cloaked his sins under a transparent affectation of honesty. If Newton's evidence was true then Hobbs was a party to the conspiracy from the very outset. Hobbs was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud and of receiving the cheque knowing it to have been obtained as a result of a conspiracy, but not guilty of stealing the cheque. Sir Hari Singh drew a cheque for £150.000. which was placed to the credit of Charles E. ltobinson. a bookmaker, at the Midland Bank, in 1920. Robinson returned to England, and found that almost all the money had been withdrawn, as he alleged, by means of false cheques. It' was alleged that the £150.000 had been paid by the potentate to settle his entanglement with Mrs. Robinson, whom he had met at the Victory ball, and with whom he had stayed at the same hotel in Paris. Montague Noel Newton, described by Lord Halsbnry, Robinson's counsel, as "the biggest scoundrel unhung," persuaded Robinson to institute proceedings for divorce. Subsequently Robinson was urged to stop the divorce, a id the potentate's European aide-de-camp. Captain Arthur, informed Robinson that the potentate had paid £150,000 in settlement. William Hobbs, the managing clerk of Robinson's solicitor, Wilkinson (known as Appleton and Co.), drew £125.000 with cheques ostensibly signed bv Robinson, and this was unequally divided between Hobbs. Newton, the A.D.C., Mrs. Robinson and Mrs. Bevan, who had formed a liaison with the potentate's private sec rotary. Robinson received £25.000, and claimed the balance of £125,000 from the bank. The defence was that Robinson was a party to the plot, and lent his wife to the potentate for the purpose of blackmail. After a somewhat vague finding by the jury, the Judge, Lord Darling, gave judgment for the bank. The charge against Hobbs followed, Newton being called as a witness against him. Captain Arthur, whose extradition from Paris the French Courts refused, is to be tried in France on a similar charge. As regards the original case, both the Midland Bank and Robinson have announced their intention of appealing against the verdict.