HATRY TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1930, Page 5

HATRY TRIAL

CHARGED ON FJFTY-SES

COUNT'S

COUNSEL’S OPENING CHARGE.

[United Press Association.—By Electric Telegr a ph.—Copyright. J

(Received this day at 12.25. p.m.’ LONDON, Jan. 20,

Peers, hankers, society women, stockbrokers and parliamentarians inundated officials requesting accommodation at Old Bailey on the occasion of the Ha try trial. Queues were formed shortly after daylight. Hatry, Daniels, Dixon and Tabor were charged on 56 counts, involving two million sterling. The jury included two women.

All the defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr Jowitt, for the Crown, gave the history of Austin Friars Trust, which was incorporated in May, 1927, and compulsorily wound up in September 19-29. He said: “Garnsey will tell you the Company’s liabilities in the course of 29 months, amounted to 19 million pounds. His estimate of the assets is four million pounds. One of Austin Friars’ Trust schemes was the acquisition of shares in existing steel companies, for which the Trust had to raise four million pounds. Approximately a million and a-half of money was raised which was intended to he utilised in the purchase of steel shares. was actually utilised by the defendants for other purvoses. The history of the case Is mainly the desperate struggle of Austin Friars Trust, and these defendants, its directors, to get back this million and a-hali.” Mr Jowitt said he would not present the case as one in which the three defendants were tools of the other defendant. All three were old enough to think and act for themselves. The- frauds would have been quite impossible unless there had been the willing and active co-operation of each of these four men' through the whole

course. Mr Jowitt then detailed the indictments of forgery in connection with Swindown. Gloucester and W akefield Corporations. “The absent director, i.j,ohn Gialklini’s name appeals frequently as the principal in these transactions.” Mr Jowitt continued: “When the jury realises the sustained perseiveiance of effort necessary to place thousands worth of bogus certificates with the public, they will also realise that I am not exaggerating when I say this is one of the gravest cases it has ever been my lot to hear of.

Mr Jowitt explained that if Giaklini was in Britain, he would ceitain]y have been accused. Unfortunately the extradition treaty with Italy did not provide for the production of an Italian in Britain or vice versa. Thev were remanded.