FRAUD CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24297, 14 May 1940, Page 8

FRAUD CHARGES

NAVAL INVENTION CASE THE DEFENCE OPENED ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 13. Evidence as to character was called by Mr W. E Leicester, counsel for Chrystall. when the defence in the trial of Chrystall and Aston, on charges of conspiring to defraud, was opened this morning. , . . k Mr D, W. Russell, counsel for Aston said he did not wish to call evidence, but he made an application for the withdrawal from the jury of the attempted false pretences charge against Aston in respect of C. U uayis and H. L. Nathan on the ground that there was no evidence that Aston came into the negotiations with either or IK' Leicester said the evidence he had to call would be very short and at the conclusion he would address th Ower7 Wallace Williams, chaplain at Christ's College, Christchurch. said he had known Chrystall for he past 16 years being particularly closely associated with him in the latter part of that period. Chrystall had been an enthusiast for thj welfare of the boys in arranging camps and so on. He naa worked with witness on committees Chrvstall had discussed the patent with him not very fully and comprehensively recently. He had a very strong belief in its genuineness ana in thf secret which apparently lay behind the scheme. . He was regarded as a great enthusiast in any project he took up and witness would say that his integrity was never ques of Christ's College? S GS he lold engineering degrees' -L b to e uknow d t o hlt he went to Cambridge University?-I understand he said Chrystalll ted been a aaf*S!S - as- srs §^i Mr Leicester (re-examining). Had he aI had very complete plans by W whfch he' hoped either tc, tebufld Ch H? s el H°o n nDr: Did he ever tell you he had been speaking to the Admiralty hfmself m London by earth telephone? Witness: I don't remember. 1 nave an impression he did. but it may be in the course of the report of the evid Did he ever refer to himself to you as being bound under the Otticiai Secrets Act? , Witness: I think-he did say that. Belief in Invention Dr George McKenzie Lester. Christchurch, said Chrystall had been praciically a member of his family for JU years. During.the past four years he had sometimes mentioned a patent, but witness had never discussed the financial aspect of the matter with Mr Leicester: Did you form any view whether or not he had any beljef in it? ' .j Witness: I am absolutely convinced he believed in it. but, of course. I had my own opinion .as to his judgment in the matter. Witness said Chrystall was very enthusiastic in everything—one of those straightforward, optimistic people who reallv never grew old. He had never heard anybody challenge Chrystall s good faith. ' • ' .. In answer to Mr Cunningham, witness said Chrystall had vaguely mentioned that the patent had something to do with keeping torpedoes away from ships. Chrystall had never mentioned a telephone operating througn the earth. He had mentioned that the patent had been sold to the Admiralty for a very large sum. From 1937 onwards Chrystall was as poor as a crow. Death of Sellers Addressing the jury, Mr Leicester said that a feature of the case which no doubt had made a deep impression upon them was the death'of Sellers between July 3 and August 2, 1939. Although the Crown Prosecutor had conducted his case very fairly, the introduction of Sellers's death inevitably brought with it an inference that the jury was ashed to draw by the Crown that in some way or other Chrystall had been responsible for it. Chrvstall. however, wa.s not charged with causing the death of Sellers. The jury might think that from time to time during the period of 18 months covering the charges, Chrystall showed an unbalanced judgment, but the task of the Crown was adequately to satisfy the jury that what Chrystall had done was with criminal intent, and as part of a criminal design. Whatever respect the jury might have had for the dead, they had an obligation to the living. They had to remember that, after enjoying for many years a reputation for good faith and integrity, Chrystall had not gone through the days of the case in both courts without suffering. It would be a terrible thing if he were required to satisfy the' jury that nothing he did was resnonsible for the death of Sellers. Counsel asked the jurymen to project their minds back into the period when Sellers was alive, and to ask themselves what were Chrystall's relations with Sellers. Aston. and the 1 others during those months. Mr Leicester said Chrystall had the belief that Aston was a mechanical and inventive genius, a Rutherford or a Pasteur, and it was when Davis expressed disbelief that he behaved, in Davis's words. " like a demented man." If Chrystall believed he was acting and dealing with a super man. and the iury accepted that belief, it migh* throw a good deal of light on certain portions of the case that would otherwise be obscure. He told Palliser he would sooner stand before a firing squad than betr-y a trust that had been reposed in him. "A Novel Proposition " Counsel quoted parts of the. evidence of various witnesses in support of his contention ■ that Chrystall believed in the scheme. It would be a novel proposition for a man to get his own family to put rroney into a venture if he thought they would be taken down, to geT his friends to invest thenmoney, snd to work for months without getting the wage of even a man on relief, all for the sake of the money being handed over to Aston to pe applied to something that was dishonest. . , . (•, "The criminal theory does not m Chrystall's case—the thing ]ust does not hang together." S 3id counsel. A celebrated French philosopher ha? said. 'A false mind is false in everything iust as f false eye looks askance. l " At this stage counsel interrupted his address to call evictencc Gordon Buchan Chrystall. a sheep farmer, of Taihape. and a brother ot Chrystall. outlined Chrystall s career. He =aid his brother was badly wounded in the Great War. Witness visited him in a mental home at Chatham, where he was an inmate for at least 12 months as the result of war injuries. Witness referred to his brother's interest in the patent, and. in answer to a question, said that to the best of his belief he had had no income during the last three years. In fact, witnesss family had kept him going in his personal needs. In reply to Mr Cunningham witness said his sister, two aunts end his had put between £4OO ano £SOO into the venture. The Earth Telephone Continuing his address. Mr Leicester laid that on the question of the earth telephone Aston was interested in

radio and electrical matters, and it was quite feasible that there might have been something at the hut which Chrystall was ready to believe was a telephone capable of speaking to the Admiralty through a land circuit. The evidence showed that Aston discussed these matters with various witnesses, and it might readily be assumed that he discussed them with Chrystall. and that Chrystall came to believe in them as part and parcel of the patent. "If Aston had a hold over Sellers and Chrystall. and if he was the directing force to the extent suggested, then it is quite understandable," counsel said. " that these events began to take on the rosy aspect of reality." The basis of a charge of conspiracy, Mr Leicester said, was that the person practising the deceit must know that what he was doing was false. "It is not suggested by the Crown in this case that Sellers was guilty of false pretences—the Crown says that Sellers was duped. I ask you this: Is it not dangerous in this case to attempt U> draw any distinction between the positions of Sellers and Chrystall so far as being duped is concerned?' Dealing with the charges of false pretences and attempted false pretences Mr Leicester contended that the Crown had not established that when Chrystall made the representations he knew that they were false. With regard to the charges relating to the cheque for £750 drawn on the Racing Conference, Mr Leicester said there was not a tittle of evidence that Chrystall had any intention of stealing the cheque. The jury had to go a long way to sheet home to him any guilty knowledge when Sellers handed him the cheque. Aston's " Ingenuity " Mr Leicester drew attention to what he described as the ingenuity of Aston throughout the transactions. Chrystall, himself, had entered into all the agreements and signed the promissory notes. Throughout, Aston had gone out ot his way to build up an atmosphere that would serve more and more as time went on to convince Chrystall of the genuineness of everything that he said and did. There was a very marked contrast between the two accused. Aston had not hesitated to do everything he could to leave Chrystall to bear the brunt of any trouble that might occur, although the latter had received virtually none of the money. Mr Leicester emphasised Chrystall s reputation for integrity, and said that an analysis of the bank statement produced by the Crown showed that of over £7OOO, he had received a total of £4 18s 6d, apart from £27 10s used for boat fare to Australia. Was it conceivable, moreover, Mr Leicester concluded, that Chrystall would have robbed his own flesh and blood when one of his ideals in making a large sum of money was to give substantial benefit to his old school? Crown Prosecutor's Address In his final address, Mr Cunningham said the two main points to be determined were whether there was a contract with the Admiralty to pay large sums, and whether there was any invention for diverting torpedoes. It was apparently admitted by both the accused that neither of them had ever been to England. Both apparently claim-?d that negotiations took place with the Admiralty via an earth circuit telephone, which Dr Marsden said was wholly impracticable. There was no evidence of any payment having been received from the Admiralty. The case for the Crown was that there was no evidence at the hut or on the launch that cither had ever been used launch that eitehr had ever been used for experiments, and the accused had claimed that the headquarters for experiments were at Nelson. When shown letters from the Admiralty and the Australian Navy Office, Aston insinuated that they were false replies. What possible object could the Admiralty or the Australian Navy Office have in telling untruths when they were merely asked whether they had heard of the alleged invention of the two accused? Referring to the conspiracy charge, the Crown Prosecutor said there was ample evidence that since October, 1937. the two accused had been acting in the operations surrounding the various transactions. Chrystall in his statement admitted his share in it. Aston endeavoured to shoulder the responsibility on to Chrystall by saying that he was Chrystall's agent. Chrystall seemed to have been saddled with the task of making representations to the parties, but there was a reason for that. He was an educated man, of some standing in Christchurch, and would be more readily listened to. Case for Aston In his final' address Mr Russell said the jury, was called on to give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the men in the dock. Mr Leicester had made a strong attempt to throw the responsibility on to Aston, but Aston did not seek to escape responsibility at the expense of Chrystall. Aston had not come at all into the negotiations. Chrystall at all times made out that they were acting under the instructions of someone else. Likewise, in the instance of H. L. Nathan, except that Chrystall telegraphed to Aston, Aston's name was not mentioned and there was no evidence that he had authorised the approach to Nathan. Counsel contended that the Crown had not proved an agreement between Chrystall and Aston to approach Sellers in the first instance. Sellers was known to Chrystall and there was no evidence that he was known to Aston till October 1937. There was no evidence that he knew that Chrystall approached Sellers or that he authorised the approach to Sellers. Sellers said he was in something big with Chrystall; he did not say with Chrystall and Aston. "If Sellers were alive to-day, what would his responsibility be for the money advanced by A. E. Batt? " counsel asked. "On his own statements he had a great knowledge of the matter, sufficient to persuade his friends to put money into it." Then a Crown witness said he had seen a receipt Aston i-eceived from Sellers for from £3OOO to £4OOO, counsel continued. Chrystall and Aston did not receive one penny from Batt; they received it from Sellers. Aston made no representation to Batt before the guarantee being given. Batt was to receive a premium on his guarantee at the rate of 800 per cent, where the usual business prac'ice was onehalf to one per cent. . There was no direct evidence that Aston was present when the cheque for £750 on the Racing Conference account was paid out. Mr Justice Smith said that in view of the lateness cf the hour and the application by Mr Russell, he would sum up to-morrow morning.