"NO REPLY" WIRES
TRIAL OF FRASER, FITZGERALD A M'WILLIAMS
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
In the Supreme Court yesterday tl hearing was commenced of the case which Frederick Campbell Fraser, Jol Edward Fitzgerald, and John M'Willian were charged with conspiring to defrat certain bookmakers in. a betting trnnsa tion that involved the U6O of no-rep! telegrams. The" indictment include with the general charge of conspirac, separate counts agaiu6t the aocused < attempting to defraud some of the fo lowing persons df certain sums of mono; Henry Martindale,' William Hya; .Robert Law, Arthur Law, David ltos >and William Whelan. • i': The Chief Justice (Sir Hobert Stoul ': presided, and Mr. P. 8. K/Macnsscy aj ■' peared for the Crown. Fraser was dofended by Mr. T. If. Wi ford, Fitzgerald by Mr. A. Gray, K.C and Mr. A. W Blair, and ■ MTVilliam by Mr H. F. O'Leary. The Jury. , The following jurors were empanelled 'Arthur Souter (foreman), Albert Sai "derson-Collins, Walter Stanley Christei son, Walter Clark, Archibald Georg Davis, William Fraser, Ernest Georg Hughes, Gilbert Downes, William W. I Henderson, Frank Davies, Henry Phipps 'and William Whitely. Crown Case Opened. i Mr. Macassey, in opening, expressei " the opinion that the jury, after nearin] ." the evidence to be. called, would b '" 'satisfied that the ■ acts, of the accusei were in accordance with a oarefully-pre pared scheme concocted for the purpos' ' of defrauding bookmakers by means o ' false telegrams. The telegrams wer< '' ante-dated, and put in after the raci . had been run. The alleged offence wai "committed on the third day of the Wei • lington Kaoing Club's meeting at Tren ; tham, at the end of the first fortnigh' ;'in July. A man called Hodges had beei /charged in the lower Court along witl "the three" accused, but had been ac /quitted by the Magistrate. Hodges, whih .; the race meeting was on, met the ac- • cused Fraser and asked the latter if h( • could get some money on with the book makers,: because he was going to get « / wire • through from Trentham. Frasci said he would see what he could do, and he went to see Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald said that he had a no-Teply wire for ,£2O in the name of John Handle Then , Fitzgerald got into touch by telephone V with M'Williams, and asked M'Williaras if he had any ' wires. M'Williams replied that'he thought ho had about £1Q .worth. It was arranged by Fitzgerald '. that M'Williams should come to his office on the following morning (Saturday). There was a very curious point about the case. It was on that Friday Fitzgerald saw Martindale, the bookmaker, and asked him if ho would allow him to .put in his no-reply wire at the Government Post Office. Martindalo agreed. The' men met on the Saturday morning, .and the matter of wires was discussed. M'Williams had. five or six no-reply wire's, one for .£2O • with Martindale,. in the name.of Littlejohn, and others for amounts of about £W each with ether bookmakers. Fitzgerald wrote out his ■wires, and M'Williaras his, but the name of the horse was left out in each case. Then Fitzgerald went to the races, and M'Williams also. Fraser went back to •his office about a quarter to ten. The next thing that happened was that Fraser went over to the telegraph offico •in the Government Buildings with tho .wires. The name of the horse was not then filled in. He. went to Miss Dri6coll, the lady clerk, and asked her specially to time the wires. She did so, marking them "11.29." The advertised etarting-time, of the race was 11.80, but -it was not- actually run till 11.32. It was finished at llhr. 34min. 67sec. After gettinjr the telegrams timed, Fraser said that ho wanted to do something with them. He got them back, and went and telephoned to- Hodges. In the meantime the race, had been run at Trentham. .. Somo; communication had been given to, Hodges (who was in tho Tailway office)-from •the racecourse, and it came over the railway wire. Hodges might have got his information through ' a signal from another man, or one of 'the hands'might have been able to see the notice-board with the results fiom ■ the station/ Fraser, in the Government Buildings,, thus learned by telephone which horse had won. It was San Sebastian. He took the wires back in eight or nine minutes to the counter. .After the race was won, Fitzgerald met .M'Williams on the racecourse, and re'marked; referring to San Sebastian, that ~he thought that that jvas the horse their "•"money was on. That was a very im- ' portant statement. On Monday, July ;16, Martindale was suspicious about the "wires. He thought it peculiar, that'they /-Bhould be timed as put in just a minute the race, and wanted inquiries to ■<be made. Fitzgerald asked him for payment, and Martindale informed him that '>he was going into the matter of the wires, "-and was not quite satisfied that they '"were all right:. Later on, he and I'jtz/gerald met, about July 23, and lie told '..Fitzgerald that he was not going to pay ;-up. Fitzgerald said then that all' the "money that was on was not his, but only a portion of it.' Mr. M'Villy, Assistant General Manager of Railways, and ■Mr. Markmann, Chief Clerk of the ,G.P.0., had Fraser before them, with' the object of investigating the matter, and .Fraser made a clear and distinct admisv'sion of the whole thing, and said that .Fitzgerald also knew all about the•wires. .',. The Evidence, ■•■ Arthur Theodore Markmann, ■' Chief Clerk in the G.P.0., produced and read •the telegrams used in tho betting. He gave again evidence which he had given in the Lower Court. ■.' Under cross-examination by Mr. Wil--ford, witness said that usually the time 'that elapsed between the passing of the winning-post by the first Jiorse and the •putting up of the numbers was from five to ten seconds. Witness believed 'that a man on the railway station at Trentham could see the numbers put up on the board at the racecourse. The code-word for 11.29 was "LEX." That for 11.27 was "LES." The telegrams in the case were plainly marked "LEX." During the interview which witness and M'Villy had with Fraser to clear up the matter of the telegrams, witness did not take a' single note iu writing of anything that was said by Fraeer. Up to the present date he had not reduced any of the matter to writing in order to refresh his memory. '.•• Mr. Wilford: You are depending wholly and absolutely on your memory?— Witness: "Yes." : Will you tell me tho words of one question that Mr. Macassey asked you a minute ago?—"I am not going to attempt it." Continuing, witness sajd that the interview lasted about three hours and a half—right through the lunch hour. Mr. Wilford: How long did you have Miss Driscoll in the mail-room interviewing her?—Witness-. About an hour and a half. " Did she faint afterwards ?—"I never heard of it." In reply to questions from Mr. Gray, witness stated that after seeing Miss Driscoll, the clerk in the telegraph office, he was satisfied that she had been guilty of some dereliction of duty in handing back tho wires after timing them. Witness .was not of opinion that any other officer was implicated in the matter. Mr. Gray: Then why did you proceed with the investigation instead of handing the matter over to the police?— Witness: There was no reason why the matter should have been handed' over to them.
His Honour expressed the opinion that the witness would have failed in his duty if he had not investigated further. Mr. Gray; You say that Eraser said that Fitzgerald was aware of the arrangements that were being made?— Witness : Yes.
; Was that all?—"He said that Fitzgerald was to receive half tho proceeds." ■ Was thh in answer to a f|uestion from you or Mr. M'Villy?— 1 "It was not in answer to a.question .from..-me. It may have been asked by M'Villy."
Mr. M'Villy in the Box,
Richard William M'Villy, Assistant General Malinger of Railways, gave evidence of the interview that ho and Mark-
Mann had with Frasor and Hodges, H said that Fraser stated that Fitzgeral was fully cognisant of tho purpose fo which tho telegrams wore to be need, an 111 tm. " 16 . Illetho <r th"' was adopted IU Tho evidence given by witness was, ii effect, that Fraser fully admitted that li filled in the telegrams after ho rocoive* the information that the race had boei won by San Sebastian. Hodges was sen | for during the interview with Fraser and he 6aid that he did not know tin , purpose for which the information wliicl Fraser asked him for was required, bu that he would not have been, a parti to taking down the "books." Witnesi asked Hodges at once why, if ho wa: unaware of the purposo for which Ihi information was desired, ho had import ed bookmakers into the matter, as up tc ~ that time no mention had been made "" of bookmakers by any person in tho J room. Hodges was unable to givo any explanation. Frasor had on several occa- ! sions after the interview said that the , statements ho had mado were quite true, " Mr. Wilford, cross-examining: I sup- • pose you had no reason to havo a par- ' ticular "down" on Fraser, or to want '' to settle him? . AVitness: All I had to do was my duty. ' It was to clear up a complaint that had been mado about a very serious irregularity in the use of one of the railway telephones. ' As a matter of fact, yon and Fraser were quite good friends up to this, were yon not?—" Quito good friends." Don't you remember the time that you told him that a Judge complimented you : on your cross-examining, and said that - you ought to have been a lawyer?—"l - don't remember that." ) Asked whether his statement was truo > that Hodges, when asked to explain why . he mentioned taking down the book- , makers, was unable to do so; witness replied that Hodges did say something, but the explanation was unsatisfactory. Cross-examined by Mr. Gray, witness [ said that hie only concern in the inter- , view with Fraeer was tho fact that a [ railway telephone had been improperly j used. Mr. Gray- Then why did you spend , three hours cross-examining this man over this transaction ?—"The improper use of the wire was bound up with tho , telegrams." Mr. O'Leary: Do you agree with Mr. Markmann' when he 6nys that Fraser did not suggest that M'Williams was cogni&nt of this alleged' fraud ?-"I don't know that Fraser said anything about that except that he was pretty definite that M'Williams was to get about a third of the proceeds." Mr. Macassey: It has been suggested that you havo a spite against IVaser. Is there any truth in that?—" That is absolutely untrue." Concerning Fraser. Ellen Driscolli clerk in the Telegraph Office in the Government Buildings, gave evidence similar to that which she gave in the Magistrate's Court, Mr. Wilford, cross-examining, asked: You. did not actually see Fraser write any words in the telegrams after he sot them back?—" No." Therefore you could not swear that ha wrote in the words "San Sebastian," after you had timed the wires?—" No." Mr. Wilford suggested to the witnesi that Fraser did not write anything on the telegrams, but that ho was engaged in making memoranda from them on other telegram forms. Witness stated that she could not swear positively what forms Fraser had written on. Mr. Wilford: If you had added up the words in the messages, when they were first handed to you, all this could never have happened, could it?—"l had not added them." t You wero too busy, were 'you not?— "Yes." Was Fraser.at the telephone <wo minutes?—"He seemed; to be there' a few minutes." Did you hear him say: "Damn, I can't get them"?—" No." Did you know that-he spoke to anybody but the Exchange?—"l don't know." _ Witness, in answer to further questions, stated that she could not say definitely what time elapsed between the time that Fraser received the telegrams back and the time that he returned themr Arthur Edward Whyte, secretary of the Wellington Rncing Club, gave the srme evidence as that which he tendered in the lower Court. , Bookmakers' Evidence. I Henry- Martindale, bookmaker, who ' was the next witness, admitted to Mr. Blair that the police had. given him an assurance that anything that lie might say_ in evidence would not be used against him for the nurpose of prosecut. in? him under the Gaming Act, or any other Act. Robert Law and William Ryan, two more bookmakers, entered the witnessbox, and after they had given their evidence the further hearing of the crse was postponed till to-day.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19171113.2.32
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 42, 13 November 1917, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,124"NO REPLY" WIRES Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 42, 13 November 1917, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.