FRAUD CHARGE

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21039, 15 February 1940, Page 8

FRAUD CHARGE

FURTHER EVIDENCE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS GENUINENESS MAINTAINED DISAPPEARANCE OF PARTY WELLINGTON. Thursday Further evidence by Ernest Palliser, land agent, of Wellington, ! opened to-day’s hearing in the Magistrate’s Court of the case wherein Harvey Maitland Chrystall and Gordon Percy Aston are jointly charged that they conspired by deceit to de- 1 fraud Hartley Roy Sellers of sums of money amounting to about £6765. The presiding magistrate was Mr J. H. Luxford. Witness said that shortly after Aston’s return from Sydney he was present with Sellers. Batt and Aston at a meeting in Sellers’ office. Aston was very definite that an arrangement had been made for final payment in London on March 31, 1939. He intimated that the British Government desired to have a large scale base established in Australia so that warships at Singapore could be ! treated by the process. Witness continued with his evid- i ence regarding the delay in meeting j the promissory note which was due ! and the issue at the request of sellers j of another promissory note which ! Sellers forwarded to Chrystall. who later returned it with his endorse- , ment. Aston gave a definite assur- ! ance that final payment would be made on March 31, 1939.

Awatea Fitted Aston also said that the Awatea had been fitted with plates prepared by the secret process, and that in the event of war the Awatea would be the first ship to be commandeered by the Government. Witness was invited by Aston to visit the Awatea at Wellington and see where the plates had been fitted. Asked about financial arrangements in London, Aston said they were in the hands of a Sir Robert Dowling. On March 30, 1939, witness was in Sellers’ office when the latter had a telephone conversation with Chrystall. As a result he (witness) was satisfied that final payment had actually been made in London. Chrystall was very definite that a cable message which he said was published in Wellington referred to the payment, and both he and Aston said it would probably take two or three weeks for the money to be distributed among the interested parties in Australia and New Zealand. At a subsequent meeting Aston said the Admiralty insisted on “The Hutt” being retained for experiments, and he referred to the necessity of clearing a mortgage of £750 on the premises. Some days after Aston had left Wellington for Sydney, witness saw Sellers writing out a cable to Aston asking if Sellers could now operate on the account in London. Sellers received a reply requesting him and Chrystall to meet Aston in Auckland. Sellers went to Auckland and returned to Wellington with Aston and Chrystall on June 3, 1939. Disappearance Reported Witness learned on July 3 that Sellers was reported missing. On the following afternoon he was present with Mr E. A. Batt, when a Mr McBeath, of the New Zealand Racing Conference staff, had a telephone conversation with Aston, who was in Christchurch. Witness then spoke to Aston and told him that if anything had happened to Sellers a very grave responsibility rested on his shoulders. Aston was quite offhanded, and said Sellers was all right and was hiding somewhere. Aston also assured him that he and Batt had no need to worry. Witness cabled Chrystall, who was in Sydney, advising that Sellers was missing and asking if Chrystall could return immediately. He received no reply, but later Chrystall advised him he was returning by the Awatea. In a conversation on Chrystall’s return witness said that in his opinion Chrystall and Aston were responsible for Seller’s disappearance, and that he thought they were “ a pair of crooks.” Undertaking Given Continuing, witness said Chrystall insisted everything was true in all respects, and gave witness an undertaking that he would satisfy him within 48 hours that there was no fraud. On the following day he sent witness a telegram from Taihape, “Regret no action indicated by five.” To Mr Leicester, witness said that by March, 1938, Sellers had financially interested himself in the patent, and was deeply interested otherwise because of the reliance he placed upon Chrystall and Mr “X.” From that time to the time of Sellers’ disappearance witness frequently saw Chrystall. Witness added that Chrystall appeared agitated after Sellers’ disappearance, but witness thought that was because he realised there was a grave responsibility. He appeared more guarded and afraid to utter anything that might incriminate him. (Proceeding)