COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 24055, 20 February 1940, Page 6

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

MEN' CHARGED WITH FRAUD CLAIM OF CAPITAL FROM AMERICA NO PLATES FITTED TO AWATEA ADMIRALTY KNEW NOTHING OF ASTON (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 19. Six witnesses remained to be heard when the hearing resumed in the Magistrate’s Court of the police case against Harvey Maitland Chrystall and Gordon Percy Aston, who are jointly charged with having conspired by deceit to defraud Hartley Roy Sellers, deceased, of sums totalling about £6765/1/9. Continuing his evidence lan Burns Cromb, of Christchurch, managing director of Cash Radio (Westland) and Cash Radio (Southland) said that on occasions Aston came to the otnce unshaven and tired in the mornings and said he had been talking to the Admiralty by means of his earth telephone. He also said he used the telephone to communicate with Sydney and that he had offered it to the Racing Conference, which had turned down the offer. The witness said that Aston irequently referred to a man named Levine, who he said had been lent to him by an American group to assist with various patents. Aston also said the American interests had invested capital in his invention. Levine, according to Aston, was receiving £aooo yearly, plus expenses, from an American group and the experiments to date had cost £85,000 which had been supplied by Levine’s company. Aston told witness a man named Wright had died in Australia and left him £200,000 which was invested in several companies. Aston said that o? March 31, 1939, he was to receive £500,000 from the Admiralty. . , The witness referred to a visit he paid to Nelson and “The Hut” there. He saw nothing at the hut of a laboratory or any electrical or mechanical device. While at Nelson with Aston witness went out on a launch but aid not see any experiments carried out. Dealing with a visit to Christchurch by Sellers and a conversation between him and Chrystall the witness said he gathered that the money had been paid over and that both men were very pleased. Sellers said it would be nice to walk about Wellington and feel that he did not owe any debt. Chrystall discussed buying a section of land to present to Christ’s College. Aston said the British Admiralty had sent him to Singapore to meet the chiefs there and discuss his invention. The witness said Aston and his syndicate were to pay foi the experiments which had cost £85,000. Aston had also said the Admiralty would not allow torpedoes to be fired at any of their ships but for the purpose of experiment he had an American boat he kept in Sydney. Detective-Sergeant McLennan: Did Aston produce any proof that he had been to Singapore? Witness: He showed one or two tickets that he was supposed to have got the East. The witness added that Aston had promised to show him a film of his experiment but so far witness had not seen it. Aston went to Sydney in May 1939, saying he was going over in connection with the “quad" plant and returned in June. He then referred to the Admiralty’s stipulation that the mortgage on “The Hut” must be cleared and said that Chrystall was to take the documents over to Sydney and then proceed to Er. land to pick up £27,000 which was to pay out Batt, Palliser and Sellers. £5O NOTES IN POSSESSION On one occasion just before Aston left for Australia he had two £5O notes in his possession. Before he left Christchurch to come to Wellington for the trip Aston was hard up and obtained some money from Cash Radio. He told witness that Chrystall had seen the Racing Conference about a sum of £llOO that had been overdrawn and that the money had been paid to him (Aston) and probably would be returned inside ten days. On June 10 Aston told witness that Sellers had disappeared. Aston seemed very worried. The witness continued that Aston in conversation with him frequently referred to his alleged invention. He told f.e witness the Awatea had been docked and his plates had been fitted and that immediately war was declared the Awatea would be commandeered by the Government. Witness said that at no time had he had any financial interest in the alleged invention and he had never had any particular dealings with Chrystall. Detective-Sergeant McLennan: Did Aston make any reference to papers destroyed at Sellers’s office? Witness: He said Chrystall had written a lot of stuff that would get him hanged if it came out and that he had visited Sellers’s office and destroyed those papers. NO PLATES FITTED Eggard John McLellan, assistant marine superintendent for the Union Steam Ship Company, said that at no time were any plates or any device of any nature whatever fitted to the Awatea when in Cockatoo dock or any other dock. Paymaster Commander Cooper, R.N., secretary of the New Zealand Navy Board, said he did not know either of the accused nor did he know anything of an anti-submarine device such as had been mentioned in evidence. Witness added that as a result of representations made to him by private citizens he had made inquiries of the Navy Office in Melbourne and the Admiralty in London regarding an alleged invention. The reply from Melbourne was that nothing was known of a Gordon Ashton (as he understood the name to be) and from the Admiralty the reply was that nothing of any invention by a Gordon Ashton nor of any communication with the Admiralty from the source claimed, was known. The Admiralty’s letter further stated that none of his Majesty’s ships had been fitted with an alleged anti-torpedo device. Witness said he assumed that had any information been available regarding one named Ashton he would have been advised.

STATEMENT BY CHRYSTALL

Detective-Sergeant Murray gave evidence of an interview with Chrystall at Nelson. He also produced a statement signed by Chrystall detailing his connection with Aston and Sellers. The statement said Chrystall and Aston were associated throughout and he

(Chrystall) accepted full responsibility in getting money for Aston’s patent. The experiments were actually carried out at Tahananui as stated. Experiments, with great danger to Aston ana himself, were carried out on the patent. In the signing of the agreement with Batt for the guarantee of Sellers’s account for £3OOO Chrystall said he and Sellers were taken completely by surprise by Batt’s insistence that the premium should be £6OOO instead of £3OOO. Reference was made in thi» statement to a cheque handed to Chrystall by Sellers for £l5O and drawn on the Racing Conference No. 2 account. Chrystall stated that Sellers assured him it was all right and subsequently told him that he had seen his chairman. Accordingly, when Sellers wrote out the other cheque on the same account for £750, both Chrystall and Aston were completely disarmed. The fact that two more cheques for £l5O and £BO respectively, both drawn by Sellers on the same account, corresponded with remittances by Sellers to Aston of similar amounts, was a matter about which he (Chrystall) knew nothing. MEETING WITH CONFERENCE Referring to his meeting with the Racing Conference executive committee, Chrystall stated, said the witness, that he frankly told the committee that he accepted full responsibility for what had occurred, but he did that as much to help Sellers as anything else. Chrystall also stated that while In Sydney in June 1939, he had completed arrangements so that Aston would have £ll5O available in New Zealand to reimburse the Racing Conference subject to Sellers agreeing to certain conditions. All the moneys he had received from and through Sellers, continued Chrystall, were used in connection with the business. _ The statement continued: “I want to make it clear that from my own personal knowledge and experience as an engineer the whole business is bone fide and all matters I represented to Sellers, Batt and the others in obtaining finance for the business have been genuine.” NOTES ON INTERVIEW Detective-Sergeant Murray also produced notes on the interview with Aston at Christchurch last December. The witness said Aston was questioned as to the alleged invention and said he had no money transactions with Sellers. He had added that a month before Sellers “went for his swim” he (Aston) had received a clearance showing there was no money owing between him and Sellers. In a subsequent interview Aston had told the witness that in all money transactions with Sellers and Chrystall he had simply acted as Chrystall’s agent with any money he had received. Aston had denied having said the Awatea had been fitted with anti-torpedo plates at Sydney and answering the other questions had replied that he was not prepared to discuss his financial interests in Australia or elsewhere. He could not understand Sellers disappearing because everything could have been fixed up within 24 hours. The witness added that when Aston was asked whether he did claim to have some contract or arrangement with the British Admiralty, he shook his head and said: “I can’t tell you that.” The money traced from Sellers to Aston was, Aston had said, in connection with the ordinary business, and there was no fraud in anything he had done. DETECTIVE’S TALK TO ASTON Detective-Sergeant James McClurg, Christchurch, said that on July 10, 1939, he had a conversation with Aston in connection with another matter not before the Court. Aston said there were no financial difficulties between himself and Sellers, but that there were considerable financial difficulties between Sellers and Chrystall and that the amount involved was about £7OOO. He said he had no interest in any financial matters with Chrystall and that Sellers had told him that he was having financial difficulties and was trying to arrange an overdraft at the bank. The witness corroborated the evidence given by Detective-Sergeant Murray. This concluded the case for the police. Mr Leicester intimated that Chrystall had nothing further to say to the Court at the present stage. Counsel suggested that the Court might formally overrule any objections he had made as to the admissibility of evidence. His reasons being: (1) That the evidence had been published and so far as Chrystall was concerned counsel had no complaint regarding the manner in which the evidence had been published or the fairness of the prosecution.

(2) It seemed unprofitable to embark on a discussion of evidence for the purpose of pressing the objection; therefore it did not follow that if objections were allowed at the present stage of the trial the judge would necessarily take the same view or that there would be any substantial gain in pressing the objections. No harm had been done to Chrystall by the publication of the evidence. Mr Purchase said he wished to associate himself with Mr Leicester’s remarks and so far as Aston was concerned he was content to leave the matter in the hands of the Court.' The only matters to which he felt he had a substantial objection, said counsel, were those referring to the gold-making episode in 1928 and to Aston’s habit of tearing up bank notes. The first reference was to something said to have taken place many years before anything that could have possibly affected the present case. As to the second objection, it had not been shown that the habit was outside Aston’s normal personal habits for a period of years. It might be foolish but it had no relation to the present charge. The Magistrate, in ruling that there was a prima facie case against the two accused, said it was not necessary for him to go into the question of objections to evidence. He would formally over-rule all objections and commit the accused for trial at the Supreme. Court.

Bail was fixed at £lOOO, with a surety of a like amount, or two sureties of £5OO each.