GREY REFUSED BAIL

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1929, Page 3

GREY REFUSED BAIL

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION UPHELD “ABSOLUTE PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION.” (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, October 17. An appeal to the Supreme Court to grant bail to John Grey, the Helensville laud agent, who was recentlj" arrested as being A. B. Crouch, a fugitive criminal from Texas, on a charge of committing extensive forgeries on banks in 1916, was refused by Mr Justice Herdman in Chambers to-day. Mr-Rogerson, if or Grey, said the application for bail was based on the grounds of the extensive interests of innocent parties which were going to be* jeopardised, the interests of Grey’s wife and three young children, and to:? accused’s own personal interests. Owing to the peculiar nature of the business he carried on, he had considerable interest in equities and in second mortgages over a wide area, and had assisted many clients in land transactions.;

His Hohour. questioned the relevancy of these matters. <

Mr Rogerson admitted that he could not instance any easd of a man taken in custody .under the Extradition Act who had been granted bail His Honour: The first thing the Court has to consider in a question of this kind is the safety olf accused. Mr Rogerson said he had a petition signed by representative land agents in Auckland asking - that Grey be granted bail because they knew how important it was in his business. Surely the fact that the man was exceedingly well known would be relevant, as showing the difficulty he would have in escaping.

His Honour: Ido not know. So many might be anxious to help him. „

Mr Rogerson said accused was anxious and willing to comply with any conditions That might be imposed on him.

His Honour: I do not suppose there is difficulty in seeing him in gaol. Mr Rogerson said there was. During the short period he had been in Mount Eden Gaol he had had interviews with no fewer than fifty solicifc tors. When counsel himself rang up, the gaoler told him he would be the thirtieth solicitor to see Grey that day. Mr Meredith, who opposed the application on behalf of the Crown, submitted that the Supreme Court had no

jurisdiction, all the powers under the Extradition Act being given to Magistrates.

Replying to the Judge, he said the crime was a serious one. Two banks had been defrauded of £40,000, but in spite of all the machinery off the American police the man had been able to make his escape. There had been found in accused’s possession a most elaborate cable code which had been used by Crouch. As an example, “ pounds ” meant “ meet Edith in Yokohama”; “shilling” meant “meet Edith in Sydney”; “dollars” ipeant “ meet Edith in Nicaragua.” Edith was the name of Mrs Crouch. The Police Gazette, containing a description of the man, said that one good place to look for him was in a Presbyterian church, as it was characteristic of him to throw himself devotedly into church work. Accused had associated himself with the Presbyterian Church .in Helensville. Accused was apparently denying that he was the man. Against him there was the affidavit of a man who had known him if or 25 years, and who was positive he was Crouch. It was stated in the description that Crouch had a liver-col-oured birthmark under the left knee. Defective Doyle, when arresting him, suggested that he should put on clean linen before going to gaol. He accompanied Grey to his bedroom and saw what he wanted. He had said to Grey: “You did not get the birthmark removed from under your knee.” Grey pulled down his shirt, and said: “You have no right to be examining me now.” The American police had obtained, through a relative of Mrs Crouch in Texas, a photograph of the man and of his .house, purporting to be photographs of Crouch and his home These were photographs of Grey, or whatever he liked to call himself, am 1 of the house in which he had been living in Helensville for some years. In face of such absolute proof of identification, it was significant that Grey was brazening the matter out. New Zealand was an easy country to get away from. The police felt the responsibility so keenly that while he was on hail they had three officers detailed to watch him throughout the whole 24 hours.

His Honour said the point had been made that the Court had no jurisdiction, but he preferred to deal with the matter on other grounds. Taking into consideration all the facts that had been brought under his notice, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances that he had been identified by an officer sent from the United States, that photographs had been produced that pointed to his identity, that a birthmark had been discovered upon his limb—-all pointing to the fact that this man had changed his name and

that he had a code which would enable him to communicate from here to people in America —he came to the conclusion that the Magistrate had exercised his discretion wisely in refusing bail, and that he should not interfere. The summons would therefore be dismissed.