ALLEGED FRAUD

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 89, 12 October 1934, Page 10

ALLEGED FRAUD

VICKERS AND GILMOUR

CHARGED TODAY

CONDITIONS OF BAIL

Conditions of the bail granted in the Magistrate's Court today to Charles Ernest Vickers, aged 44, a clerk, and Ernest Mabin Gilmour, aged 39, an accountant, were that they shall report daily to. the police and remain in the custody of the police whilo ships leave here for Australia. Both men were remanded to appear on November 14, bail being granted to Vickers in the sum of £500 with one surety of a like amount, and to Gilmour in the sum of £100 with one surety of a like amount.

The charge against Vickers was that on or about October 10, 1930, at Manaia, with intent to defraud, he obtained through his agent, Archibald David McKinley, from one James John Patterson, the sum of £1000 by falsely representing that the Craftsman Manufacturing Company of New Zealand, Ltd., had purchased the Now Zealand patent rights to a motor-car headlamp reflector, that the dies used in the manufacture of the reflector cost the New Zealand company £12,000, and that the New Zealand company had been selling 500 sets and reflectors per month since it started in New Zealand.

Against Gilmour tho charge was that, on or about July 11, 1930, at Wellington, with intent to defraud, he obtained from William Claus Hanson the sum of £200 by falsely representing that the Craftsman Manufacturing Company had the patent right for New Zealand, that in exchange for a certain number of shares in the New Zealand company one Flight, of Australia, who had the patent rights to a special motor-car headlamp reflector, had granted to the Craftsman Manufacturing Company the New Zealand patent rights for the reflector, that the Australian people were not receiving money in connection with the sale of the patent rights, and that they had only, received shares in tho New Zealand company. LENGTHY HEARINGS. For the prosecution Mr. D. W. Virtue asked for a remand until November 14, when they would be ready to go on. In view of the magnitude of the proceedings there was no possibility of the men being able to stand their trial at the coming sittings of the Supreme Court, and the Lower Court hearing would probably take three or four days, witnesses having to come from all over New Zealand. For Vickers, Mr. W. E. Leicester said that his client was a married man living,with his family in Australia, and he would not be brought to trial before February next year. Because of that and because it was a private prosecution lie asked the Magistrate to take a lenient view of the question of bail. Vickers, ho said, was an auctioneer and valuer approved by the Supreme Court of Victoria, and he had never previously been before a court on any charge. It had been suggested in the Press that he had disappeared after the first extradition proceedings, but that was not so. His home was known to the police, and he visited the city regularly every day from that time until he was arrested again. He had been brought before the Court some six times in Australia, and he had always answered to his bail. On this occasion he had consented to come_ to New Zealand with a view to having this matter, cleared up. "I am instructed to offer no objection to bail, provided it is substantial," said Mr. Virtue. He also asked that there ])e some surety that the accused reported regularly to the police^ and that on the days when the Sydney boat left he remained under the supervision o£ the police until the boat sailed. MELBOURNE POLICE EFFORTS. Although the prosecution was a private one, said Mr. Virtue, it was directed by a Judge, and though it wag true that the first extradition proceedings against the accused were dismissed on a technical point, the accused had then walked out of court and despite the efforts of the Melbourne police they were unaWo to locate him for fully three months. The police reports appeared to contradict the statement that he was living at his home. GILMOUR'S CASE. Mr. Virtue made the same suggestions as to a remand and bail in the case of Gilmour. ~ Mr. W. P. Kollings pointed out that Gilmour was a married man with a family. For some 3i years he had been absent from New Zealand, and until recently he was" in England. In March this year lie booked a passage for himself his wife, and his family back to New Zealand, intending to sail in August. In May he was arrested on a warrant from New Zealand and bailed out in the sum of £50. He appeared before the Court eleven times, and on his twelfth appearance in tho Bow Street Police Court the papers from New Zealand had not arrived and the extradition proceedings failed. There was then nothing to hojd Gilmour in England, and he could have gone to any country he chose, but he decided to adhere to the .plan he had already made njid he left England for New Zealand in August on the ship Ballarat. Tho first he knew of any further proceedings was at Colombo, when the ship's officers would not allow him to land, and - ; t Fremantle he was arrested. Had i lie man wanted to evade the charge he .•ould have remained in London or gone lo aiiy country where extradition would have been diflicult, but he had an answer to the charge and he had come back 12,000 miles to make that answer. The police information, said Mr. Virtue, was that Gilmour had booked a passage to New Zealand only for his wife and child. His own passage was booked only as far as Melbourne, and for that reason counsel did not think he intended to come back to New Zealand. Bail should be just as substantial as that for Vickers, and with the same conditions. . Mr Boilings said that the accused's fare had been paid from England to New Zealand. To a question by Mr. Stilwcll as to whether the amount involved was £200, Mr. Virtue replied that there would be ten charges in all, involving approximately £14,000. Mr. Stilwell said that in fixing bail he was concerned only with the present charge.