FRAUD CHARGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 140, 14 May 1940, Page 10

FRAUD CHARGES

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. CHARACTER OF ACCUSED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, May 13. Evidence as to character was called by Mr W. E. Leicester, counsel tor Chrystall when the defence in the trial of Harvey Maitland Chrystall and Gordon Percy Aston, who are charged with fraud and conspiracy, opening this morning. Mr Russell (counsel for Aston) said he did not wish to call evidence. Mr Leicester said the evidence he had to call would be very short, and at the conclusion ho would address the jury. -• _ y-•-/ Ow.en Wallace' Williams, chaplain at Christ’s College, Christchurch, said he had known Chrystall for the past 16 years, being particularly closely associated with him in the latter part bf that period. Chrystall had been an enthusiast for the welfare of the boys in arranging camps and so on. He had worked with witness on committees. Chrystall had discussed the patent with him, but not very fully, and comparatively recently he had a very strong belief in the genuineness and the secret process which apparently lay behind the scheme. He was regarded as a great enthusiast in any project he took up and witness would say his integrity was never quetsioned. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr W. H. Cunningham) : Is he an old boy of Christ’s College?—Yes. Does he hold engineering degrees? —I believe he does. Do you know that he went to Cambridge University?—l understand he did. “BELIEF IN PATENT.” Witness said Chrystall had been a consulting engineer during the 16 years, but lie could hot say whether iiis practice was large. He would bo a man whose word one could] accept. Mr -Leicester (re-examining) : Had he any plans?—He had very complete plans by which lie hoped either to rebuild the college in a very remarkable situation on the hills or at least build a chapel on it. The Judge: Did he ever tell you he had been speaking to the Admiralty himself in London by an earth telephone?—l don’t remember. I have an impression, he did, hut it may be I saw it in the course of the. report, of the evidence. Did lie ever refer himself to yon as being bound under the Official Mec rets Act? —I think he did say that. Dr. George McKenzie Lester, of Christchurch, said Chrystall had been practically a member of liis family foi 20 years and had rarely missed haying a Sunday supper with witness ir. the past 20 years. During the past three or four years he had sometimes mentioned the patent, but witness had tievor discussed the iinaiicia.l uspect of the matter with him. Mr Leicester: Did you form any view as to whether he had any belief in ft?—l am absolutely convinced he believed in it, but, of course, I had my own opinion as to his judgment in the matter.

Witness said Chrystall was very enthusiastic in everything. Fie was one of those straightforward optimistic people who really never greM old. He had never heard anybody challenge ChrystalFs good faith. In answer to Mr Cuniiinghanij witness said Chrystall had vaguely mentioned that the patent had something to do with keeping torpedoes away from ships. Chrystall had never mentioned a telephone opera/ing through the earth. He had mentioned that the patent had been sold to the Admiralty for a very large sum. From 1937 onwards Chrystall was “as poor as a crow,” witness added. ADDRESS TO JURY. Addressing the. jury, Mr Leicestei said that a feature of the case which no doubt had made a deep impression upon them was the death of between July 3 and August 2, 1939. Although the Crown Prosecutor had conducted his case very fairly, the introduction of Sellers’s death had inevitably brought with it an inference that the jury was asked to draw by the Crown that, in some way or other, Chrvstall had been responsible for it. Chrystall,’ however, was not charged with causing the death of Sellers. Ihe jury might think that from time to time during the period of IS niontlis covering the charges Chrystall had shown an unbalanced judgment and some of them might think that he showed gross lack of judgment, hut the task of the Crown was adequately to satisfv the jury that wliat Chrystall had done was done with criminal intent and as part of a criminal design. Whatever respect the jury might have had .for the dead, they had an obligation to the living; they had to remember that, after enjoying for _ many years a reputation for good faith and integrity, Chrystall had not gone through the days of the case in both Courts without suffering. It would bn a terrible thing if he were required to satisfy the jury that nothing lie did was responsible for the death of Sellers Counsel asked the jurymen to project their minds back into the period when Sellers was alive and to ask themselves what were Chrystull’s relations with Sellers, Aston, and the others during those months. Mr Leicester said Chrystall had a belief that Aston was a mechanical and inventive genius—a Rutherford or Pasteur—and it was when Davis , expressed disbelief that he behaved, in Davis’s words, “like a demented man.” If Chrystall believed he was acting and dealing with a superman and the jury accented that belief it might throw a good deal of light on certain portions of the case that would be otherwise obscure. He told Palliser lie would sooner stand before a firing squad than betray the trust that had heen reposed in him. Counsel quoted parts of the evidence of various witnesses in support of liis contention that Chrystall believed in liis scheme. It would ho a novel proposition for a man to get his own family to put money into a- venture if he thought tliev would he taken down, to get In's friends to invest their money, and to work for months and months without (retting the wage of even a man on relief, aU for the sake of the money being handed over to Aston +o he applied to somethin" that was. dishonest. “The criminal t.heorv does not: fit ChrystalFs case—the thing just doesn’t hang together,” said counsel. “A celebrated French philosopher has said. ‘A false mind is false in everything just as a false eye looks askance.’ ” At this stn"c counsel interrupted his address to nail evidence. Mr D. W. Russell made application+o Hi« Honour for the withdrawal from the I'iry of the attempted false pretences clmr"°s against Aston in respect of C. C. Dryls and H. L. Nath°n on the "round that there was no evidence that A ston came mto the negotiations /ivitli either of them. CROWN SUMS UP. In his final address the Crown Prosecutor (Mr Cunningham; said the two main points to be determined were

whether there was a contract with the Admiralty to pay. large sums,- and whether there was any invention for diverting torpedoes. It was apjiarently admitted by both accused that neither of them had ever been in England. Both apparently claimed that the negotiations took place with the Admiralty via an earth circuit telephone which Dr. Marsden said was wholly impracticable. There was no evidence of any payment having been received from the Admiralty. The case of the Crown was that there was no evidence at “The Hut” or on the launch that either had ever been used for experiments, and accused had claimed that the headquarters of the experiments were at Nelson. When shown letters from^ the Admiralty and the Australian Navy Office Aston had insinuated that they were false replies. What possible object could the Admiralty or_ the Australian Navy Office have in telling untruths when they were merely asked whether they had heard of the alleged invention of the two accused ? Referring to the conspiracy charge, the Crown Prosecutor said there was ample evidence that since October, 1937, the two accused had been acting Tn operations surrounding the various transactions. Chrystall, in his statement, had admitted his share in it, but Aston had endeavoured to shoulder the responsibility on to Chrystall by saying he was Chry stall’s agent. Chrystall seemed to have been saddled with the task of making representations to the parties, hut there was a reason for that. He Was an educated man of some standing in- Christchurch and would be more readily 1 listened to. BENEFIT OE DOUBT. In his final address Air Russell said the jury were called on to give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the men in the dock. Air Leicester had made a. strong' attempt to throw the responsibility on- to Aston, but Aston did not seek to escape responsibility at the' expense of Chrystall. Aston had not come' at all into the negotiations between Chrystall and C. CDavis. Both Aston and Chrystall at all times had made out that they were acting under the instructions of someone else. Likewise in the instance of H. L. Nathan, except that Chrystall had telegraphed to Aston, Aston’s name was not mentioned and there was no evidence that lie had authorised the approach to Nathan. Counsel contended that the Crown had not proved an agreement between Chrystall and Aston to approach Sellers in the first instance. Sellers was known to Chrystall, and there was no evidence that he was known to Aston till October, 1937. There was no evidence that ho knew that Chrystall had approached Seilers or that lie authorised the approach to Sellers. Sellers said he was in something big with Chrystall. He did not say Chrystall and Aston. “If Sellers were alive to-day what would be his responsibility for the money advanced by A. EBaht?” counsel asked. “On his own statements lie had great knowledge of the matter, sufficient to persuade his friends to put money into it.” Then a Crown witness had said he had seen a receipt Aston had received from Sellers for from £3OOO to £4OOO. Chrystall and Aston did not receive one penny from Batt. They received it from Sellers. Aston had made no representation to Batt before the guarantee was. given. Batt was to receive a premium on his guarantee at SOO per cent., where the usual business practice was a half to 1 per cent. There was no direct evidence that Aston was present when tile £750 cheque on the Racing Conference account was paid out

Air Justice Smith said that, in view of the lateness of the hour and the application by Air Russell, lie wouldsum up to-morrow morning.