SHARES FOR SALE.

Shannon News, 15 June 1923, Page 2

SHARES FOR SALE.

(‘THE RISE AISD FADE OF THE SEA ” “INVENTOR” CHARGED WITH MISREPRESENTATION. (From Palmerston vThnes.”) - A remarkable invention worked by “the rise and fall of the swell of the sea,” is claimed by Joseph Harvey Cornish, who was haled before Messrs W. F. Durward and J. Ashcroft’. J.’sP. in the Police Court yesterday morning on three counts of -misrepresenta- • tion, arising out of his disposal of shares for the patent. The charges were (1) that' on or about May 1, 1923, at Shannon he did obtain the sum of £lO from Louis Edgar A. Peach by falsely stating that the Government had offered £7,000 for an invention he had discovered which was t'o be worked by the rise and fall of the sea, that he had refused the offer and a firm of brokers in Wellington had promised to get £200,000 in six weeks for it; (2) that he did obtain the sum of £2 10/- from Thomas King by falsely stating that he had discovered an invention which had been tried with great success at the Three Kings. The invention was for utilizing t'he rise sCiid * fall of the swell of the sea. and there would be no hesitation on the pait of the Government in buying the invention as it would do away with hydro-works; (3) that he did obtain from Alice Francis Churcher thje sum of £1 by falsely stating he hijid an offer of £5,000 for his share in t’he invention. Detective-Sergeant Quirke prosecuted, the accused defending his own case. THE ACCUSED CAUTIOUS. When Detective-Sergeant Quirke asked the formal questioh of t'he accused if he did not object to the charges being taken together, Cornish demurred. “No,” he said, “I want them taken separately, because all the informations are different.” It was explained that it was quite unnecessary and only meant prolonging the case considerably. "No,” repeated the man, puting his thumb in his waistcoat, “I want' them heard separately.” This was, of course to, and Detective-Sergeant Quirke said that it was alleged that the man had been going round the country claiming to have made an invention based on the rise and fall of the ocean swell. He had stated that he intended to erect machinery ©n the Otaki Beach “TRIED AT THE THREE KINGS.”

Thomas H. King, a carrier in business at Shannon, said he first met the accused two months ago when he carted some goods to the man’s house. Later, he hud a conversation with him about t'he patent which Cornish claimed to be worked by the rise and fall of the sea, and which he asserted had been tried fair y successfully at the Three Kings. He said he had shares for. sale ai d witness asked if he could take a share on the condition t'hat he d'd.not have to pay a full £5. Witness believed that, the story about the Three Kings was true, otherwise he would not' have taken a share. The accused gave him a prospectus, which witness was to read over before taking the share, and witness eventually paid £2 10/-. The accused said he intended placing a plant on the Foxton Beach to demonstrate: the invention. He also intmafed that witness should get about £7.500 out' of j the proejet. I

MONEY-BEYOND DREAMS OF

AVARICE.

To the accused: .When the accused first spoke to witness, he stated that the scheme at the Three Kings was “in a small way” and he intended ’to try it on The Foxton or Otaki Beach and if it was a success there was a lot' of money in it “practically beyond calculation,” and if it proved a failure, liis money “Went West.” Witness did not remember accused saying that' if the Government ’ tried the scheme probably it would be tested ;at T’hree Kings. The matter was mentioned to witness -in the Albion Hofei.

Detective Holmes said that ip consequence of complaints received he proceeded to” Shannon, where he interviewed the accused. The latter, in at, statement, said that for about three months •he had .been selling shares in connecion with a patent' governed by the rise and fall of the sea. He had sold tweqty-two shares with the specific agreement that if the scheme failed he would not be liable. The plans and speeificat.ons and also the agreement had been legally prepared. He : had ,T.*d-purchased any machinery, but intended to do so. On May 28 witness arrested the man on another charge and then found in his possession book of promissory notes on back ;of which were a .number of names which the

accused said were the names of shareholders He had 15/10 in his possession and told witness t'hat he had no other money and requested that the sum be sent to his wife living at Foxton. He had collected about £l5O during the last few months, but this had been used to pay his back debts and maintain his wife and family. A TEST IN THE BATH. The patent had been fried in the bath but the accused had never been to the Three Kings and did not mention the Three Kings. To the accused: Wifness found that the more enquiries he made, the more satisfied he was that “there was not much in it.” “Are you satisfied that' what I sold was not my personal property?” “I don’t dispute that, but I don’t think anything exists,” replied witness. WHO OWNS THE AIR? The accused (addressing the Bench) : “Sir, I understand that a man selling part of his personal property by misrepresentation does not commit a criminal offence and it should really be a civil action.”

The Bench: “That is a matter for the Supreme Court.”

Detective-Sergeant Quirke: “When a man sells air, whose property is t'hat?” (Laughter).

Evidence was also tendered by Constable McGregor as to interviewing the accused, who stated that he intended erecting t'he plant, but he was a little shorthanded at the time.” SHAREHOLDER NUMBER TWO. Louis E. Peach, a share milker residing at Shannon, who had also invested in two shares, said t'hat the accused told him that the Government svas going to give him £5,000 or £7.000 for the scheme if it was adopted. This partly induced witness to fake the shares, as he had worked with the accused in 1902. Accused had said he had tried the scheme and a big firm of brokers in Wellington would obtain £200,000 in six weeks free of cost, if the Government refused to buy it. He said he had tried the plant and witness gave him a cheque for £lO “as a deposit” to be credited to witness’ account.

To the accused: Witness reckoned it was a good idea on the strength of the statements made by accused. There was' no mention made of what would happen to the shareholders' money in the event of failure. “He did not mention failure,” said the witness. STRANGE, BUT TRUE. “Did you not think it strange, if I had refused to accept £7,000, that' I would offer you the share at £5?” aßked the accused. I believed ail you told me,” was the reply. Accused: “Did you not say that if it was good enough for old Joe Cornish it is good enough for me?”—“Yes, I did.” LAST SHARE SOLD. Al ee Churcher, a resident of Shannon, said that in April last the accused came to her house and read over an agreement and then said he had been offered between £5,000 and £7,000 from the Government, but he felt there was a great deal more money in it and in passing mentioned that his last share was up for sale. Witness did not decide to purchase a share until two weeks later. She then paid him a £ off a £5 share and the accused also borrowed 5/- from witness. Accused said there was a demonstration to be friven on the Otaki beach a week or so later.

The accused had no questions to ask lrom this Avitness. INVENTOR MAKES A LOAN. Charles Baird, a motor mechanic residing at Shannon, said that he happened to be at Mrs Churcher’s -,cuse when the “inventor” called round. He heard the accused say that the scheme had been tried in a small way and worked satisfactorily. About April so the accused borrowed 30/, and eventually the Avitness agreed to take it out in a share” and in order to make up the difference in a £5, fie lent the accused his motor car. 1 hat concluded the case for the police. Accused pleaded not guilty and Avas committed to the Supreme Court for u-lal.

M! fi’ PRO "'EOT SHAREHOLDERS. Do you '.van! bail?” the accused v.\ • asked,

Yes sir, I do, for tAvo good reasons K you will listen ” The Court listened. )\ is imperativ e that I be free because tnc scheme must be completed within one month in terms, of the agreement. It would not be fair to the other shareholders if I could not be allowed to piotect them. Secondly, my wife and children need support, and if free I shall be able to earn a few pounds and work away at the patent at the same time.”

“A BIRD OF PASSAGE.” Detective-Sergeant Quirke: “Well, if this man is to have bail, it should be substantial. He is only trading on the gullible section of the public. He is a bird of passage and has no fixed place of abode.” Bail was fixed in the sum of £l5O with two similar sureties. A further charge that he did obtain from Jabez Bebbington, at Levin, the sum of £5 by falsely stating that a solicitor at Otaki had purchased one hundred shares for £SOO in an invention which Cornish had discovered was preferred against the man. and on he. application of Detective-Sergeant Quirke, he was remanded to appear on luesday next, bail being renewed.