RISE AND FALL OF THE SEA.

Otaki Mail, 6 July 1923, Page 4

RISE AND FALL OF THE SEA.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST INVENTOR. CHARGES OF FALSE PRETENCES. I At the Levin Court on Wednesday be--1 lore Messrs H. J. Richards and S. In- ' der, Joseph Harvey Cornish wa<s chargj ed with “that, on or about the 9th day J of March. 1923, at. Levin, he did obtain , from Janez Bebhmg-tun the sum of £5 I by means oi false pretences, to wit, by laisely slating that a solicitor or | utuki had purchased 100 shares in the invention which he, the inventor, had discovered for utilising the rise and iali of the sea, and had paid £SOO in cash for same.’’ Further charges of a similar nature respecting sales of shares to fvan Nevme Drake, farmer, of Manakau., and Frances Louisa Bebbrngton, were also preierred. Detective Sergt. Quirke, of Palmersj ton North, appeared'for hie police, the accused being unrepresented by counsel. Jabez Bebhington, sworn, stated that on or about 12th March, lie had a conversation with accused at Levin when accused intimated that he had patented mechanism to utilise the rise and fall of the ocean. He told him that a. solicitor in Otaki wae a half partner with him, having taken 110 shares in the invention a,t a. price of £SOO. He said that ho had 100 remaining shares and was selling 25 of these to obtain finance. He stated that agreement'had been drawn up by a solicitor who was in partnership with (him. He stated further that provisional protection had been taken out over the patent, He bad made a test in a bath and had found it successful, in answer to an enquiry he stated that lie had also made a (rial on the beach with satisfactory results. His purpose for being in Levin was to consult about, the manufacture of machinery, which would be gone on with either in r ovin or Manakau. As iho result of ‘ these representation-.! witness had pur-rheJ-'Pd one share -at £5. and had received a document, produced, covering the sale. In answer to a question from aroused, witness did not remember Mr Hoekington. of Lval.l Bay, Wellington, | whom (accused bad said owned a half share in ihe invention. \rru.sed: Did T not spin that. Mr Hoekington had a half share in the natent.. Witness : I don’t remember you doms so. I understood that the irifin in •t-.-i.ki wars vonr partner. Accused : Did T not. sav that Mr i Hoekington was financing the .scheme, which if successful would be a big thing, bul that, if ii were not a success, you would probably lose your j money P jj! Witness: No. if In (answer to Dele.i live-Seigt. Quirke IB witness staled that lie had purchased p the share solely on what, accused had | said about the solicitor in Otaki, hav- | ing token a half share iri Hie invenijj tion. $ Frances Louisa. Bebhinglou, wife of | the previous witness, deposed Ihuf I about the beginning of March, aeonsjf ed came to the Grand Motel and trad | a conversation with Iter husband in is tier presence regarding some shares in I an invention for utilising the rise and ( fall of the tide. Accused had- stated that, he had a. partner in Otaki who had taken half shares in the invention, for which he had paid £SOO. Tie Wad stated that he had come in Levin to get, parts made for the invention and I that he had 20 shares to sell, which j were worth £IOO each, but which could be bought lor £5. As Ihe result of | these statements her husband had bought i» share in the invention for which the agreement produced had been tendered. A few days later accused again called at file hotel and spoke to her. He staled that he »mi hud one or two shares to sell and would let tier have one share ii she I wished to buy it. Alio had bought me | snare, paying £5 lor ii. Her reason I xor buying llie share was because tier jj ausbaiid had already bought one.. Ila j | she known that the accused’s repre--1 seutaiion about the lawyer in Otaki i was untrue she would not have bought § it. I Cross-examined by .accused she rc- | membered accused reading out a list » of names oi peoples Interested in Hie invention in otaki. including that of Mr Dunkley, but did not know any of them. She did not remember any mention of Mr Hoekington, of Lyall I Bay or she could not remember anything staid oi Mr Dunkley, except that i he was a solicitor n Ofaki, and could II not say whether the accused had stat- | ed that lie lrad one share or was a l half share partner. A. M.Dunkley, solicitor, of Otaki, deposed that, he knew the accused .and j was not a partner in fhe invention and had not purchased any shares from him. Ivan Neville Drake, farmer, of Mana : kau, gave evidence that he knew the accused, who came to see him on March 19, and had represented that he had patented an invention for utilising Ihe rise ami fall of the sea, having taken out, provisional patents therefor, in New Zealand. He stated that, he had a partner in Wellington who had a. half share in the invention. He was reserving 75 shares for himself and was selling 25 to pay expenses. He had slated that lie had tested the invention in a bath with a Gane milking machine pulsator and the result was satisfactory. He said that Mr Byron Brown had offered to invest £IOOO in the invention, but accused bad refused the offer. He made the remark that he was particular 1o whom he sold the shares and intimated that he was doing witness a favour by selling him a share. As the result of accused’s representation that Mr Byron Brown was prepared to invest money in ilie scheme, lie had taken a share, j paying £5 for it. it. was the statement j that Mr Byron Brown was interested I in the invention which had induced, him to invest. j In answer to accused, witness said* the conversation in which Mr Brown j was mentioned had taken place in (he j cowshed, and afterwards in the Man-! akau Hotel. Ho remembered the men- j tion of a. partner in Wellington, but] the name of this partner was not men-J Honed. He understood that accused u< had only a half-share, and remembered 1 his statement that he had put the ! proposition to Mr Byron Brown, but did not remember him saving lirat Mr Brown had said that the scheme was too much in its initial stage and that, later he might be willing (o go into it. He remembered the statement that if the invention worked -all right Mr Brown Would purchase a plant and put it in at Otaki. Accused : Does it not seem strange to you. as a business man, that- T refused a £iooa and was willing io sell these shares at £125. Witness: T understood that it would not leave sufficient, inteesi for you,, ff , you sold the number of shares, Mr; Brown required. Witness: No. ; Accused : Di(T I -ask you to buy a j sharp in the invention.' Byron Paul Brown, retired farmer, I living in Wellington, sworn. ’ denied 1 hrming al ! am r time made accused an j offer of CIOOS or any other sum for * j an interest in his patent. \ The accused was informed that the \ witness was leaving the country nextmonth and that he would have no further chance of cross-examining hint'

j but slated that he had no desire to challenge witness’s statement, Thomas Edward- .Holmes, detective, : p.almersto.n North, gave evidence that. ' us a result ot complaints received front various purchasers of shares, lit# had gone to Shannon and interviewed 'accused. telling him that complaints had been made of statements made by accused when selling shares. Accused had said that, he was prepared to answer any questions, in company with Constable McGregor they had gone to , the Shannon Police Court where aci nised' signed a statement, produced, to ; the effect that during- about three ' months he had sold 30 £SO shares receiving a deposit'of £5 on each share. He had told shareholders that he Intended to erect a plant .on one of the beaches. He had not purchased, any machinery- at present. A provisional ■ patent was taken out, the papers being hold by Messrs Park -and Sons, i patent ottornevs. Wellington. He ! stated that he had told purchasers of shares that if the invention was a success they would receive -about £,5. but if ji was not they would lose their money. There was no written agreement between Ifoi-kington and himself. He had made successful trials ot the invention spud a demonstrating - plant for which h:i'= partner would pay ■ would later tie eroded. i on mil May he arrested accused orFoxton. Accused had the sum of 15s lOH in ltis possession, which he stated ! was the orilv money he possesseu. He ■ stated he had no plant of any description for demonstrating the patent ■ and had made no definite arrangements for getting such, but that the cost of the plant was to he home by Mr Hockington. of I.yall Bay. Accused had a book of promissory notes In his possession on the hack of one - of which was a list of names winch accused stated were the names o! shareholders. Amonr-t these names were those of P.eVihingfon and Drake. \rcm-ed stated that lie had received appro\inralelv £l5O from the sale Of chare; P'-ior to his arrest. On to y i ha informed m'-'me-l that he ,-t,a,-ve.) as at present and :«■< llseo l;-.:! stated that he wished Byron ft row it would offer (he Cl 000 for the Third share. This -onehided the en.se for the po--1 i cp, , ~wadml not guiltv and was iV. ( . f’O nft in rit.i.-r-P-! on \ugusf 7. for 'rial, the n 1, h l lin-o‘ : n•: Hint several other i,r, ; v V nil!,] ifir-n I H-- prelorroct a gainst 111