McArthur case

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 125, 28 May 1936, Page 6

McArthur case

—♦ REMAND UNTIL JUNE 24 THREE FURTHER CHARGES THE BAIL CONDITION WELLINGTON, May 27. Fur the second time since bis return from Australia under an extradition order a month ago. John William Shaw McArthur appeared in the Magistrate’s Court at M eilingtou to-day. In addit’on to the four charges on which he uppeared originally and in respect of which he was remanded for a month on bail, three others, alleging theft of moneys were made against him to-d«.y. A further remand of a month was ►ought and granted, and bail was a.newed. An application by counsel for the waiving of the ba I condition that McArthur report to the police either m Wellington or Auckland twice w.’c’iiy was not granted by the magistrate (Mr. E. D. Mosley), but he varied the •ondition to the extent that McArthur, in addition tu reporting cither at Wellington or Auckland, may also report «.t Christchurch or Dunedin, according to where he is at the time. The amount of the bail is £IOOU in the accused’s own bonds with two sureties *»f £5OO each. The charges made against McAcLur on his first appearance in the Court on April 27. shortly after his arrival from Sydney in the custody of a detective, v fn’lnws:—(a) On or about April 8, 1933, at Wellington, being , u. a co**ipany called “The lu- \ squeal Executive Trust of New Zealand, Ltd./’ publishing a prospectus dated April 8, 1933, inviting the public to subscribe to a second scries of debentures in the company, which prospectus was false in several material particulars; (b) on or about March 16. 1933, at Wellington publishing a repot t in writing to debenture holders of rhe company for the year ending December 31, 1932. which report was false; (c) on or about March 2J, 1934, publishing a false report to the debenture holders for the year ending December 31, 1933; and (d) on or about April 3 1934. at Wellington, issuing a false prospectus dated May 3, 1934, inviting subscriptions to a second series of debentures in the company. Th? Other Charges. To-day. after McArthur had taken his place in the dock, he was further charged: (a; On or about September 10. 1932. at Auckland, he committed the theft of £409 of the moneys of the Sterling Investments Co. (N.Z.), Ltd.: (b) on or about the same date at Auckland he committed the theft of £.350 of the moneys of this company; and (c) on or about October 20, 1932 at Auckland, he committed the theft of £325 of the moneys of the company. Mr. C. Evans Scott appeared for the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey\ and Mr. 11. F. O’Leary, h<C.. with him Mr. R. E. Tripe, for McArthur. Tn applying fur a further remand. Mr. Evans Scott said that Mr. O’Leary had discussed the question of a fixture for the case with Mr. Maetissey, and 'leituer side was prepared to jticeed at the moment. Mr. O’Leary would be appearing as counsel for Eric .Marco at iis retrial at Auckland and would not ne able to proceed until Jurte 24. and rhe prosecution raised objection -o

the case being adjourned until that I da: e. | Mr. O’Leary said that Mr. Evans i Scott had correctly stated the position. I Neither the prosecution nor the defence j was ready to proceed to-day nor for a week or two. June 24 would be a suitI able date and he agreed to McArthur being remanded until that date. A renewal of bail was asked for by Mr. O’Leary, who then referred to the condition imposed on the accused when bail was granted him a month ago. “Embarrassing Condition” Mr. O’Leary asked for this condi*ion to be removed. It was submitted, said counsel, that the condition was unnecessary, uncalled for, and embtir.a. sing to the accu.-.ed. Lie understood that when the remand wa.s granted Mr. Macas.se,y, who then appeared, asked that there should be a condition as to reporting to the police, the reason given being that the great difficulty experienced in getting McArthur from J.ustralia. But, continued counsel,. he understood that the magistrate who presided then, Air. Stillwell, said that, of course, the defendant was entitled to take any action in his own defence tuat might be advised, ami that was what McArthur had dune. He was quite entitled to resist the extradition proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that he alleged that in New Zealand he was ruined by legislation and he did not want to go to New Zealand again. McArthur acquired interests in New South Wales ami (Queensland which required bis attention, and which were being prejudiced by his absence. Consequent!v, he did not want to leave them. The extradition proceedings, said Mr. O’Leary, had tmeen seven months to dispose oi. During that time Me Arthur was on bail and no attempt was made by him to leave New South Wales or Australia. Mr. O’Leary said he would point out that McArthur had gone to Australia long before there was any suggestion of any criminal p.oceedings. His was not the case of a man, who, tearing criminal proceedings, left New Zealand and had to be brought back. Prejudice Alleged. McArthur, continued Mr. O’Leary, was moving about among business and legal people from day to day. Under the conditions upon which bail bad been granted bis business activities were hampered. If he was in Christchurch or Dunedin for business reasons he would suddenly have to bolt back to Wellington for the purpose of reporting to the police. Tne re was one other matter: McArthur conside--ed that such a condition prejudiced him in the eyes of the public and created an atmosphere against him. One would think from th? imposition cl’ such a condition that McArthur was some desperado or some desperate criminal who had been returned to the Dominion, instead of being a man v> ho, when he returned to New Zealand and attended a meeting of bond holders in Wellington, was accorded an ovatic-n from these people, who knew him. The bail condition, said Mr. O’Leary, embarrassed McArthur in the preparation of his defence; it embarrassed him in attending to his interests, and it was submitted it was calculated to prejudice him and create an atmosphere against him. Further charges had now been laid against him, but so far as they were concerned anyone could lay charge.-'. The defence took the ?ame view in regard to these charges as it did toward? the others. There was a oerfect defence to them,

and I hey would be met in due course, j One could only suggest, perhaps, that ft j little atmosphere was being created in j making the charges to-day. r lbe bail j granted McArthur was substantial, and . it was submitted that in all the or- t cumstances the condition should not be , imposed upon him. Application Opposed. Mr. Evans Scott said he could not j consent to the deletion of the condition. which was the usual condition. Mr. O’Leary: It is not the usual condition. Mr. Evans Scott submitted that when an accused persons was brought back from another country on extradition proceedings it was a customary condition of bail that he report to the police. In his submission, the accused would be caused no trouble in reporting to the police twice a week wherever he might be. If he desired to roport other than at Wellington or Auckland there would be no objection, but he submitted tov great risk would be involved if the condition were deleted entirely. Mr. Mosley inquired what attitude the defence would take to the bail being increased to £3OOO with two sureties of £l5OO each. Mr. O’Leary: He might have diffi-

i cully in getting that. That would be ' embarrassing. 1 Mr. Mosley: 1 mean instead of rej porting. 1 remember years Hgo ’-'he | imposition of bail of £5OOO with two | sureties of £2500 each. I After consulting with the accused, M;. O’Leary said that one of the sure- ■ Lies was in Auckland. It would be i necessary to ocmmunicate with him, ' and such a course might mean that Alcj Arthur would be iu custody for a time. The magistrate thereupon said that he would grant bail of £lOOO with twd sureties of £5OO each, with the special condition that McArthur report on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week to t>he police at either Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, or Dunedin. He stated that he had included Christchurch and Dunedin because of what counsel had said. Mr. after speaking to McArthur, asked Mr. Mosley if he would consider removing the special condition if arrangements could be made for oail of, say, £2OOO. Mr. Mosley: Oh,, no. You musn’t suggest that. I say £3OOO c-r the bail that is fixed. Mr. O’Leary: As your Worship pleases. McArthur then left the dock r.rcl the courtroom with cemmek