Charge of fraud

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21038, 14 February 1940, Page 8

Charge of fraud

CONSPIRACY ALLEGED ANTLTORPEDO PATENT SUM OF £6765 INVOLVED EVIDENCE NOT SUPPRESSED vßy Telegraph.—press Association) WELLINGTON, Wednesday The hearing commenced in the Magistrate’s Court today of the case in which Harvey Maitland Chrystall, aged 52, engineer, of Hutt, and Gordon Percy Aston, of Christchurch, are jointly charged that on or about October 1, 1937 and on diverse dates between then and July 3, 1939, at Wellington and other places in the Dominion, they conspired by deceit to defraud Hartley Roy Sellers of sums of money amounting to about £6765. Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., was on the Bench. Before calling evidence DetectiveSergeant McLennan said there would be 37 witnesses and a very large number of exhibits. Mr C. E. Purchase, appearing for Ashton, asked that accused he given their liberty on their own recognisance during the hearing. He also asked that owing to the sensational nature of the case the publication of evidence be suppressed. “I appreciate that it is a most unusual request,” he said, “but this is an unusual case; first because of the large amount involved and the rather sensational nature of alleged statements said to be in the evidence. The person alleged to have been defrauded is unfortunately unable to give evidence, and much of it must be circumstantial.” He submitted there was sufficient justification for the application. Application Opposed The Magistrate said there was no power to suppress evidence. The only power there might be was to exclude the- public, including the press, from the preliminary hearing, which would automatically mean that no outside record of evidence was taken. Mr W. E. Leicester, who with Mr R. T. Peacock appeared for Chrystall, also asked that bail be granted accused on his own recognisance. “So far as the application for suppression is concerned,” he said, “I regret I cannot associate myself with my friend's application. I deem it in my client’s interests that there should be no suppression of any facts.” The Magistrate said he would make an order for bail in accused’s own recognisance, they were to report to the police station each evening. In view of the different attitudes taken by counsel and the nature of the charge it would be impossible to consider granting the application for suppression of evidence. Regarding the question of admissibility of certain evidence, which had been raised by both the police and counsel, objections to such evidence would be noted, and he would subsequently hear counsel to see whether sufficient evidence had been legally admitted for accused to be committed for trial. Request For Finance Edward Augustine Batt, managing director of Edward A. Batt and Company, manufacturers’ representatives, in evidence, said that early in March, 1938, as the result of a conversation with a man named Palliser who had approached him for a special purpose, he met Sellers and Chrystall at Sellers’ office. He was approached by Sellers in connection with guaranteeing an overdraft for Sellers for £3OOO. As a result of the conversation be visited the office and found Chrystall and Palliser. Chrystall told the party he was interested with Sellers and a Mr “X.” arT inventor who had sold a patent, to the British Admiralty for £280,000. and the money was required to clear up sundry expenses before the Admiralty’s payment of £IOO,OOO. On June 1 of that year Chrystall explained that owing to both himself and the inventor being sworn under the Official Secrets Act. the inventor’s name would no* be divulged at that stage, but the statement he had made was absolutely accurate in every respect. Matter of Secrecy Sellers said he was conversant with the whole matter and had spent considerable time with the inventor and Chrystall at an experimental station at Tahanui. Nelson. Chrystall said that up to that time approximately £BO.OOO had been spent on these experiments, and the patent at that time was the property of the Admiralty. He added that the matter was of such secrecy that both he and the inventor could be “put up against a wall and shot” for divulging anything about it. Witness said he was still not very enthusiastic, but undertook to provide the finance. £3OOO. for a period of three months in the form of a guarantee at the Bank of Australasia. Sellers referred at that time to Mr “X” as an engineering genius. Chrystall said he was directly associated with Mr “X” as a civil engineer. Death On Board Ship Chrystall told witness of a Mr Levine’s activities. Levine, he said, had worked with Mr “X” for some time with the experiments and subscribed a considerable sum, said to be £IOO.OOO. He was stated to have sailed for England for the completion of negotiations with the Admiralty. but en route was killed in the | engineroom of the ship. Agreement Completed Witness added that as a result of what Chrystall said. Sellers also agreed to the proposition. He took Sellers and Chrystall to his solicitors, and a member of the firm dratted an agreement on the lines indicated. £6OOO sterling was to be paid to his credit at the Commercial Bank of Australia in London. The accused Chrystall stood surety. The agreement. was completed the following day. Detective - Sergeant McLennan

handed in to Court a document which he said was the agreement. To Divert Torpedo After they left the solicitors’ office, said witness, he asked Chrystall for information about the patent, without divulging anything under his oath. Chrystall said the invention was designed to divert from its course a torpedo fired by an enemy machine, and it was absolutely infallible. Witness expressed his gratification that the Admiralty had such a valuable means of defence. Chrystall did not demonstrate the infallibility of the invention. Verbal Attack Some weeks later, in May, 1938, he went to Sellers’ office to meet Mr “X,” Sellers, Palliser and Chrystall. The man was introduced to him as “Mr Gordon Aston,” and he was stated to be Mr X. “Immediately after I was introduced to Aston, who was partly intoxicated,” said witness, “he attacked me in these words: ‘I have had more trouble over your lousy three thousand than I have had over deals of a hundred thousand or more.’ “I turned to Sellers and said: ‘Can you explain this man’s attitude toward me?’ Sellers replied that he could not.” Witness said Aston took a cheque from his pocket and said: “I will pay you out.” Witness said he would be very pleased and would accept. Aston then said, “Yes, with a discount of 8 per cent,” with which witness disagreed. Aston was in a semi-intoxicated condition, and said he was working night and day on his experiments, and was not going to be worried about anything. Witness said the agreement was not carried out with Sellers in June and an extension to August 17, 1938, was agreed on. Invention Described A fresh agreement was drawn up on June 17, 1938, witness continued. The signatures were those of Sellers and Chrystall. Between June and August, 1938, witness met the accused Aston in Sellers’ office. On this occasion Aston was quite sober. He drew on paper an outline of a ship’s hull, and said the patent consisted of attaching polarised metal plates to various parts of the hull. The plates were wired to electrical machinery, which when set in motion would deflect an enemy torpedo from its course. Aston said the idea was infallible, and that he had grne to England at the request of the Admiralty. When witness expressed surprise at his early return. Aston said that on reaching Sydney he had been diverted to Singapore, and that the Admiralty had provided him witn a plane for the purpose. He also said the Admiralty bought his patent outright for £230.000. The Admiralty was advancing him 10s ir. the £ on his supplies of metal, and was holding the balance to his credit. Second Apparatus Witness said Aston then described another apparatus designed to detect and distinguish surface and underwater boats up to a distance of 400 miles. A great deal of money aue to him was being held by the Admiralty until he completed experiments on this detector, which would be within a month or so. Continuing, witness said another agreement was made out on August 19. 1938. the signatories being Sellers and Chrystall. About October 11. 1938 Sellers showed witness a note (produced) from Chrystall that Aston was returning from Sydney. Proceeding.