"NO-REPLY" WIRES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 43, 14 November 1917, Page 6

"NO-REPLY" WIRES

TRIAL OF FRASER, FITZGERALD AND M'WILLIAMS

THE DEFENCE BEGINS

FRASER AND FITZGERALD GIVE EVIDENCE In the Supreme Court yesterday the hearing -was resumed of the case in which Frederick Campbell Frnsor, John Edward Fitzgerald, and John M/Williame were charged with conspiring to defraud certain bookmakers in a betting transaction that involved the use of no-reply telegrams. The indictment included, with tho general charge of conspiracy, separate count 3 against the accused of attempting to defraud some of the following persons of money: Henry Martindale, William Bynn, Robert Law, Arthur Law, David Eoss, and William Wlielan. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presided, and Mr. P. S. K. Jfacasscy appeared for the Crown. Arthur Law and David floss, bookmakers, were called by the Crown to give evidence ns to the receipt of telegrams from the acoused, malting bets on the race that wns won by San Sebastian. The depositions made by William Whelan, bookmaker, in the Lower Court were put in, as the witness had bean ■unable to come from Christchurch in time to give evidence. Detective-Sergeant Eawle gave evidence as to statements made by the necused Fitzgerald and it' Williams after the arrest o£ Frnser. Mr. Gray was proceeding to question the witness as to a statement he hail, made before the Grand Jury. His Honour nsiteil Mr. Gray whether he could quote any authority for inquiring into whatNvas said before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was a secret committee, eworu not to divulge what took place. Mr. Gray submitted that the witness might be asked questions regnrding at.y statement he hhd made in- connection with the case before any tribunal whatever. The witness was not a Grand Juror. His Honour Tilled that the question was inadmissible. Detective Andrews also gave evidence. Arthur Theodore Markraann, Chief Clerk in the G.P.0., gave evidence as to how .the correct time was sent out to the various branches each day. "No Case for the Jury." Mr. Wilford stated that he proposed to call evidence. , Before Mr. Wilford did so. Mr. Gray submitted to .His Honour that there was no case against Fitzgerald to go to the jury, The Btntements made by Frnser to if'Villy and Markmann and the statements made by M'Willinms to Whyte were clearly not evidence agamet Fitzgerald on two grounds: _ first, that they were not made in the presence of Fitzgerald; second; that they were not made in furtherance of the common design, if there was one. The essence of conspiracy was the agreement to do a wrong act. There was nothing in the evidence of the witnesses called against the accused that wns evidence against Fitzgerald. Anything said by any one of the accused with .relation to a common design was not evidence against the other alleged .conspirators, but against himself, and Fitzgerald's part, upon the evidence, appeared merely as. an innocent agreement to enter into a bet with other men on a horse, tho name of wlucii he did not know. Counsel asked His Honour to direct the jury, to return a verdict of not guilty in Fitzgerald's case.

His Honour: I- am of opinion that there is evidence against Fitzgerald. I don't think it would be wise to comment upon it at present. Mr. O'Leary made an application ori behalf of M'Williams sim.ilar to that made by Mr. Gray. He submitted that it could be tirped with stronger reason in the case of M'Willinms, as there was no evidence at all that .M'Williams thought that the transaction was dishonest. His Eononr: I admjt that the case against your client ie not nearly so . strong as that against Fitzgerald, but I think it is better to leave it to the jury. Mr. Gray: Will Your Honour note my application, and reserve the point, if necessary, for the Court of Appeal. His Honour: I won't say anything about reservation at present. It is not the time to ask for tbat. I will notetb" application. Mr. O'Leary's application was also noted down. The Case for Fraser. •Mr. Wilford said that ho felt upon the evidence given 1 that it was the duty of Fraser to go into tho box and submit himself to cross-examination. He could assure counsel for the other two accused that when they had heard Fraser's defence they would have no reason for giving ,iny further thought to their applications to the Bench. The defence would be that the telegrams were sent in time, and that there was no fraud at all. The upshot of it would be that the other accused would, with Fraser, have to be acquitted, and the bookmakers would have to pay up. William Samuel Ridler, clerk in the head office of the Railway Department, gave evidence that on July U he granted Fraser permission to go out of the office about 11 a.m. qil,., »- J Tl J.-1..1 it.-i. . T..1

Tho accused Frase'r stated that on July H he was in the Railway Head Office. He had not been on duty since August. AVitness had on various occasions bet with bookmakers, and had before the Wellington meeting in July backed San Sebastian successfully at Palmerston North. Witness backed the horse on his own judgment on tho second day's racing at Wellington. On that day he paid about £K or .£7. Ou tho next day witness set out to have, if possible, a good win. He had no no-reply wires himself, but ho was of opinion that Fitzgerald would have some. FitzpjQrald agreed to lend a wire for ,£2O, and to go halves with witness. Having arranged for this wire, witness asked Fitzgerald if he could get any more -wires, and Fitzgerald told him on the Friday evening that he had been successful. Up to that timo M'Williamß was an absolute stranger to witness. Witness met him at Fitzgerald's office in Lambton Quay on the morning of tho race. Witness did not disclose tho iiame of the horse to either of the other men, and the name was, as usual, left out of tho wires. It was the practice for tho wire to be left blank for the man who had tho loan of it. Witness went away witli the wires to his office, where ho remained till 11.25. He filled those wircg in. in the record room of the Railway Office.

The wires were handed to Fraser in court. Some of •them were written in. ink and some in pencil. Witness explained this by stating that he was interrupted several times while lie whs writing them. So far as he knew there was no ink in the Government Buildings post office, at which ho arrived about 11.25. The clock there was right opposite him when ho entered the door, and was risht behind thq girl at the counter. Witness asked Mies Driscoll to time the wires at once. He wa6 certain that when they were timed it was 11.27 and not 11.2 ft. Ho handed in n\\ the telegrams in the completed state in which they appeared in court. He asked for the telegrams signed "Les Bowles" and "HII3II Arthur," and remarked that he was expecting a wire in connection with them. He was not certain that he had the right address. Miss Driscoll was very busy, and she handed over all the telegrams and told witness to pick out for himself those that ho wanted. The only telephone in the office was n private one behind the door, and when M'Villy said Hint witness told him he used the public telephone lie was not jinking a correct statement. Witness tnecl to ring up Kfa, the railway number, nnd when he could not get it, he raid: "Damn." Miss Drisroll s.iul "fisli!" Witness, after lairing the 'phone, copied out two telegram? and innde a note of the rest. Re hnd sone to the telephone to see whether a wire had come to the railway office from Les Bowles, ;i mercer in Te Arnlia. Witness hnd tlinl: morning received a telegram from Howies about a miemulcrslaiHlinfr. TV was handed in nt Te Aroha nt 9.17. Witness read n certified copy of the telegram in question. It wns an authority to witness to Imrk a horse on behalf 'of Bowles and Arthur for the amounts eet forth in tho telegram (.CIO), with certain book-

makers. ■ AVitness was expecting a wire to come to the Tailway office wliilo he was away in the. Government Buildings post office. Ho therefore tried to ring up tho railway oflice, and if lie had got on to the number, and the telegram had been there he would have had it opened and read to him. Witness swore positively that from tho time he weiit into the office till the time tho wires were finally parted with ■he made no alteration in them. From where Miss Driscoll was standing, 6he could not Mβ what he was writing or what forms he was writing on. All the wires were just as they had been written in the railway office. The Interview with M'Villy. Witness described the interview he had with M'Villy and Markuiauu. It lasted from 12.MJ to 3.15. Jt'Villy sat all tuJtimu, and witness siood. llie first words uttered by Jl'Villj wore: "ilr. Markuiauu wants to see you about some telegrams." Witnws caet ins tye round, ■and saw the telegrams on the telephone ledge. Mr. Marknuiim wa9 in a very agitated condition, and was quivering like a leaf. He got up, and was so shaky that he could not iioid the telegram successfully. Witness helped him to hold them, and tho wires were turned over in order, Markmann pointed to each one, and said to witness: "Is that your writing?" and witness said: "\ r os." Then the telegrams were replaced, and proceedings opened.

Mr. Wilford: Neither Markmann nor M'Villy suggested that you ever said to them that yon put the name of the horse in after you had the wire dined. But I want to nsk you this: At any timo during the interview did you give tfiem

reasou to believe that you had altered the telegrams from the timo that you' first wrote them?—Fraser: "I did not."

Do you claim that those wero genuine telegrams, genuinely sent?—"tienuine telegrams."

You admit that you entered into an arrangement with these other men for the purpose of getting no-reply wires so that; you might have n good win on a horse yon had twice backed successfully before? —"I do. Jle was a good winner on the second day."

You selected San Sebnstian ' for the plunge?—"l did."

His Honour: Wlmt do you mean by (he plunge? I don't understand you. Mr. Wilford: For the big bet, for an qut-of-lhe-oidinnry bet. (To witness): Did you know that Fitzgerald and M'Williatns were going to.the races .that morning?— "Yes."

Will you explain to the jury the effect it would nave if two big bettors went out to the course and put a hundred each on San Sebastian after you had backed it?—" The chances are that if they put .£IOO or ,£l5O eaclt on the horse, and told a few of their friends about it, it would rcdueo the dividend to a minimum."

In answer to a further question, witness said: "If yon put .£IOO on "a horseearly in the morning, instead of just before the race, the bookmakers would probably put the money on the machine." Mr. Wilford: When did you hear tijo result of this^race?—AVitness: "I donft think T heanTit till about 12 o'clock."

From whom ?—"From a man named in the District Traffic Manager's Office.

Is it that oflice that is connected dirnct with Trentham?—"l understand so."' Wns that the first time you heard the result of the race?—"lt was." How did Hodges como to ring you up? — >Vo had had a conversation about racing, 4 and he knew that I was frequently betting. I asked him whether, if he should hear fairly promptly of tho result of any races at any time, he would let nio know. As a matter of fact, I hud n.ad advice from Ihat office regarding races on numerous occasions before, but I did not know whom it came from."

"M'Villy and Markmann Mistaken,"

It is, correct, as stated by M'Villy nnd Markmann, that you had seen Hodges ou file day before the race, and had arranged to get the result from him?— v Yes.

His Honour: But you were getting tho result to enable you to bet? Do you deny what Markmann and M'Villy swore about that?— Witness: "I deny it most emphatically." , Then, do you suggest, thtot they have ».°th sworn fnlsely/-'T do suggest that Mr. M Villy and Mr. Markmann aro mistaken as to vThat I may lmve told them. } oon t say that they deliberately told a falsehood.

Were you not present when Ho'dge.v liK c i. al ¥ , in? Did suet you tell him Mat; he had arranged to give you news 3b M d t« t? r 7', at "» iie incorrect." Mr. Wilford: Did Hc/iges, when he was in the room, say that 'he would not. havo been a party to taking down the bookmakers?— I heard him make that statement.

MVilly s satisfaction, got him on that and said that nobody up to that time hail mentioned bookmakers., did Hodges make any explanation ?-"Yes. M'Villy said • Why do you mention that, Hodges? ihere has been no mention of bookmakfw rt H P S , ? 3r,11e<,; ' T understood that there had been some trouble with tho bookmakers.' It was town talk ine town was ringing with it.' , " HnT, h^ rd ¥*■ I f Villy swcar that Hodges did not make an expknation?i nid.

Then Mr. M'Villy was won»?-"Yes" During the vhole of the interview, notwithstanding the strenuous grill vou TV?* , dld -y°? j n an y Possible way admit that yon had done any wrong?ThA w T f 11 ?^ b -V them that I had. The .first thing that happened $en I got into the room was that MVUIy acensed me of using tho namo of John Handle and Littlejohn for my as he termed it, nom de plume I promptly denied that."

«to n .? £ ea , k !. n °. n tlat latw °n?Woll, h« had to, for this reason, that he asked me then who Littlejohn and John Handle were, and I said that John Handl6 was the name used by Fit.z"eralfl, a motor importer, in Lambton Quay Mr. Markrnnnn chipped in with 'Johnny Fitzgenild. "

We hwrd, Fraser, that -when you registered at 9.45 you put in tho book that you wpre unwell ?—"lt was perfectly correct. I had had neuritis and inKornnia, and Dr. Ewart was treating me "

Why he did not Divulge Horse's Name. In reply to questions from Mr. Gray, witness stated that his only reason for not giving Fitzgerald any' information rs to the horso he was going to bacic was that he was not prepared to foil anybody for fear of reducing the dividend. Witness thought that ho had a good thing.' and he wanted at least .£(11 or ,£sl) worth of wires. Fitzgerald stood to le.se at least .Elfl over his lict. as ha and witness would have shared the loss, if there was one, just n>? they would have shared the pain, if there liad been any. There wsis nothing fn wlint -witness said to either Fitzgerald or M'Williams thnt would lead them to believe that Hip. wires were going to be put in nt all irregularly. Tt was understood thnt the wires wpre to be put in at tTto Inst minute. 'Fitzse.ralrl nsVed witnPßß to advisp him how the brt enme off, and Fraser did so. later on, when lie rcceivpd i the news. Witne?s went to FiW.cpi-ald's ! clprlc with the information. Wi'Hprs lind nevnr nt ."■— timo said anvthing that could havo mnde Fitzgerald cr 'fTVillinine th. ; "l< that there was anyllu'ncr win'"?. TTe never told the otlier accused where he was going to nut. tbo wire's in. TTp shvp a hint tn Fitz<r»rnl(] "" thn Snturtlp.v niorriin" as to the home they were eoing to bnclc. 7To f.iid. i'i rn.Oi- h T?il7jrpral(l'« nupsKonc. that it might bo one of thn horsos Fitwernld hid bpokert for him fFrnsert on the previous ilny. This meant thnt it xrns possi'Ov O'ninlnln'iijli nv R'nn Rebn'tinn. Vx. M'Villy tins stated that you said Fitzcerald knew th« nurnose find the method to I>p adnnted by you. Bid von mean to sumjesr t.bnt tlierp was nnvthing wmng at the back of that?— "r-o-fninlv not." The purpose and the method were n« just explained?—"Yps." Fraser Cross-examined. Under cross-examination liy Jfr. Mncasspy, Fraser said that, he' bncked San Sebastian purely upon his own judgment. He had no tip from the owner or the trainer. He had had a successful J3 bet on the horse on the second day. Mr. Macassoy: Would you bo surprised to hear that the owner had only .El on this horse? —Witness: "I don't beliovo it. Also, l don't believe the statement that the money that we had on was the only money that was on San Sebasti.li with the bookmakers."

Mr. Macassey: Miss Driscoll said that you got her to time the wires, then Rot

them hack, went to the telephone and wrote something in them, is that so? Mr. Wilford: Sho did not hold to that in cross-examination. Sho said in answer to me that she would not swear that Fraser wroto it in the forms. Fraser: It was perfectly untrue. The girl could not possibly have seen it from where she wae. To Mr. O'Leury: Witness did not suggest that M'Williams heard that statement. Fitzgerald's Case. Mr. Gray opened briefly in defence of Fitzgerald, and called evidence. John Leddy, accountant in tho employ of the accused Fitzgerald, gave evidence, inter alia, aa to Fraser calling with the news that the bet had been successful. Witness then eent a telegram ■to Fitzgerald on the racecourse conveying the information. Fitzgerald innde a statement similar to •that which he made in the Lower Court. 'He said that he and M'Williams rather ■thrust themselves in upon Fraser in demanding a share in the possible proceeds of the betting. Fraser wanted as much as ho could get for himself. So far as witness knew 'he stood to lose about .£2O or .£3O over' the transaction. He did not consider that a very large sum to risk. Before witness went to the races Fraser told him that the investment, if mado at all, would be on the first race. . After witness received the wire from Leddy ("Correct for first") he went to M'Willmms aud told the latter. JJ'Willinuis replied: "What a fool that Fraser is. He might have told us, and we could havo put .£IOO or more on." ' In reply to Mr. Macassey, Kilzgernltl said that ho was still of opinion that he should be , paid by the bookmakers. He' was not convinced that there was anything wrong with the telegrnms, and if there was anything wrong with them witness was not a party to it. Mr. Mucassoy: Martindale has positively stated that you asked him if you might put a wire in at the Government ]Mst office.—Witness: "I contradict him absolutely. He lias made a mistake." The case was adjourned till to-day.