RISE AND FALL OF THE TIDE.

Otaki Mail, 5 September 1923, Page 3

RISE AND FALL OF THE TIDE.

i • / , AN EX-OTAKI-ITE ISING INDUSTRY. V SHAREHOLDERS LOSE TIIEIS / INTEREST. vf/ | TWELVE MONTHS’ GAOL. < i

Hy utilising 1 the power of i.hc swell of the sea, and turning- it towards the pioduetion of electricity for *ndustrial energy, Joseph Harvey Cornish proposed to revoiuLionise industry in. New Zealand, but through his failure to produce any practical proof of the useiillness of ids invention, the people from whom he secured n. >uey to assist nan in tlie venture, mid informations against him. Ves-erday ■Cornish appeared before His Hiroar Sh* John Saimund at tiie .Supreme i Court to answer a mini oer of charges of false pietone in regard lo his

purported invention. The indictment alleged that Joseph Harvey Cornifeh, at Levin on or about March, y, l'd2'6, with intent to defraud diet obtain from one Jabez L>ebbingioa the sum of £5 by falsely representing Uial a solicitor of Otaki bad pul in £ouu for the purchase of LUO shares in accused’s invention for Jtilising t .e rise and fall of the swell if the sea. There Were live other Tiarga s of similar false represent a-

lion Ijj accused, involving persons ut Bliaunon and Levin, and sums ranging from £lO fo £2 10/. In two of the charges it was alleged that Cornish had represented to tile proposed promoters Unit the Government ha,d offered him £SOOO for the invention, and that the money lnid been refused, lie was also alleged to have stated that tile invention had boon successfully tried at Three King's Island, and on tiie sea beach at Otaki and Foxton. Afr f'\ PI. Cooke (Crown Prosecutor) handled the case for the Crown, whilst Air Ai'erton appeared for lire accused. The following jury was empanelled:—William Williamson, Jabcz. Bernard Wilton, James Adamson, Richard Arthur f-farl, Charles Taylor, William Hunter. George A. Butler, Alfred Seifert, Ole Ala reus Chrisiii'i). George Wilson Mills, Wiliiam George Hull and Frederick Jackson (foreman). In outlining the case l'or the prosecution, -Mr Cooke traversed the sali- | out features of the allegations against accused, pointing out that it was no ‘ concern of the jury whether the in-Vi-nfion wars gootl, bad or indifferent; but what was to be considered was whether the accused had induced people to take shares by making false statements. The invention might be a good one —the idea was as “old as the hills"—, but it appeared absurd that people of ordinary common intelligence should fall for a scheme to harness and utilise the swell of the sea. However, there was , a great number of credulous people in the world. Accused was alleged to have stated that the invention was divided into -00 shares, 100 of which

he himself held, and the other 100 he. was attempting to dispose of bv travelling around the country. There were six charges, counsel pointed out, the accused alleged by making false re- ; presentation both as to the possibility of his i nvenlion and as to a rejected offer of £5,000 for it fiom the Gov-, ornment. In a number of cases accused had succeeded in getting people lo acquire interest to the extent of one £5 share, ft was understood by (he “shareholders" that the shares were for £SO, and would eventually prove of t-lae value of £75, £SO of

which would be retained in the reheme. This would leave a possible profit lo the investor of £2O over his £5 share. Accuseil Unveiled tiie country for three months and during iliat time disposed of 32 shares. Wlien Arrested, Cornish was alleged to have stated that the invention had not been tried, neither did lie have a working- model of any description. Each charge, on account of a differentiation from the others, would have to be taken, and considered separately by the jury. SHARES FOR SALE. Jabez Bebbington, the first witness for the Crown, stated he was a hotelkeeper at Levin. On March 9 last he had a conversation with accused, wno expounded a scheme for the harnessing the waves, or the tides, and stilted that lie had a half share (loti shares) and that a solicitor at Otaki had agreed to invest I'nUO in the venture. Accused asked witness to take a share, staling that lie had been experimenting for some time and had consequently became short of working' capital, A provisional cover, he said, had been taken out, and accused had intended fui tiler lo protect it Cornish also said lie lnid tried the invention at the Foxton bar, and aiso oil the Otaki beach, each trial proving a success. Accused stated that his reason for coining to Levin was in order to obtain necessary apparatus for the working of the invention, j which could not be procured at Otaki. Witness took a share, giving accused a £5 note, and accepted tiie explanation that the invention would be a great success, and would revolutionise the engineering worid it: New Zealand. For his £5 he received an agreeement whereby he agreed to buy a share for £SO, £5 to be paid immediately and the remaining £45 to be paid when accused could prove that the share was worth £75. Witness glanced casually at the agreement at the time of signing, but did not remember seeing a clause which empowered accused to sell the invention, and preventing the other shareholders I disposing of their rights, | To Atr Alerton: Wh-m accused ap- , Broached witness at Levin, it was tiie j first occasion lie had seen him, and i after a conversation of ten minutes’ j duration, witness ag’rued to take the . share. Accused did not show witness i any specifications. Witness entered ' the agreement on the understanding - that there was an element of risk “like putting a fivoV o.: the iotalisa- I tor ” Cor,,iuii said at the time that he could not guarantee success of the patent, though he expresesd full confidence in it. The ilepositi oils of Airs Bebbington, taken in the lower Court, were accepted, on account of her inability to attend through Illness. The statement was »r. lines similar to that of the previous witness, and nhe conversation between Bebbington find accused was described,. Later witness also bought a share from accused, as she considered the venture a sound one, “TO GET RID OF HIM.". - Arthur I*. Dunkley, a solicitor practising at Otaki. said accused had asked him for the lo n n of £l. “He asked me for some money,” said the' witness, stating that he expected some to arrive on the following day. As he looked an honest and genuine, man, arid

/ for the sake of his struggling wife i and family, as well as to get rid or ! him, I gave him the money. Accused , said he was coming to Otaki to work , «as a contractor. Later he came back /and as security for the loan gave j me a share in liis patent—a different ) one to that which is under review at present. He was full of patents.” Continuing witness said lie m ade no enquiries about accused and at his request made an agreement, which ' witness signed, promising to take a share. He did not make any enquiries about the accused, as it was

i ‘'more out of benevolence than anyI thing,” that ho gave him the £1 for tlie share. Witness did not agree to take a haif interest in the invention. , TiUEB IN A BATH. in connection with the third charg.. 1 Jvan N. Brake gave evidence of a visit being paid him by accused on -March j last. It was then stated that the j patent, for which provisional prot"c- I

j li'on had bean ac'iuiicd, had been ! 'i i io.d in a bath, a.nd the details of the j , scheme were described to witness. ! Accused also represent'd that u air ; Byron Brown had offered him £IOOO I ] I lor the patent, the oiler being- re- • , i fused. “I knew iii Brown,” continuid the witness, “and as I had con lid- j rnoe in him, I took the share from accused. His Honour put the question as to whether the allegedly false representation had ben made prior to or alter the transaction, and was assured ( that the story had been told prior to tile passing of the money.

MUNIFICENT WEALTH. Alice Francis Chureher described how accused approached her with a plausible story of the success of his invention. Although previous trials on a small scale were stated to have been made, accused, promised that a I larger demonstration would bo held on the Ota.ki beach, and all the shareholders concerned would be invited to witness it. The attractive feature about the proposition was the promised realisation of large profits from a small sum invested. Accused had said that an offer of XfUKin or £70(10 from the oGvernment had been refused. “As soon as tin- electricity was properly developed,'’ the witness stated, “we were all to 'receive a bonus. The profits were going to be so great that we could all go to America in about six months’ time and have a good ‘fly round.’” Thos. Henry King, another investor in the sea. scheme, also gave evidence, though in this ca.se the overtures for the purchase of shares were made by witness. After receiving' the required information he took a share, paying as a first instalment £2 in/-. Accused said the patent had been tried at Thee Kings Island. His Honour: What did accused say to induce you to take up the share?—He said ho would pul up a demonstration plant at Foxton beach, and we would all be invited to attend. Did you believe the story?—l partly did. If you had not believed accused would you have bought the share?— No. I was not conversant with the thing and the proposition appeared a good one.

AN OLD FIUEN.D. Louis Edgar A. Peach, said in his evidence that he had known accused * since 1002. When Cornish aproached j him with a detailed account of the | patent of a sell erne for harnessing’ the I waves of the sea, it was stated in j reply to witness’s query that a 3-inch 1

cylinder would produce 47 h.p. Accused also gave him to understand that lie had refused an offer of £SOOO from the Government and was intending forming a company for the working

of the invention. STATEMENT TO THE POLICE. Det-.-ctiv t- T. E. Holmes, who handled the cmse in the lower Court, told tiie Court of his initial interview with accused at Shannon on May 25 last. When asked about the shares accused offered to answer any question Unit witness might wish lo put to him. Accused went to tiie police station and made a statement which he admitted that he had sold thirty-two shares in the invention. He intended to erect a demonstration plant on one of the beaches and provide the shareholders with an opportunity of witnessing the machine in action. A vacuum engine would be worked from the waves. Within one month of the date of the statement accused expected to have the plant ready. Redid not promise any specific date for the demonstration, The shares lie was selling were his own and he considered the money derived therefrom was liis own personal property. Continuing, witness described having arrested the accused at Foxton on Aiay 2S. and charging him with the offence of false representation against Air Bebbington. In accused's possession was a book of promissory notes, and on the back of one of these was a list of the persons to whom shares had been sold. Accused said this was the only record he had kept. He had received £l5O which had been used to keep his wife and family, as well as to extinguish his back debts. He numitted that he had not done any other work for four months. His monetary possessions amounted to 15/10, which he requested be sent to liis wife and family, at Foxton, who were requiring assistance, Cornish also slated that the patent had been tried in a bath by creating small waves therein. He admitted that he had never been to the Three Kings Island. When taxed with his statements to his clients, accused said he had never received, an offer from the. Government, and later said: “I wish Mr Byron Brown would offer me £1000"for a third share." To Mr Manor,: Witness had had enquiries made in Wellington as to the truth of accused's statement and found he had applied for provisional protection for his patent, although the results of other enquiries were decidedly against Cornish. Constable McGregor, of Shannon, gave evidence of having conversed with accused in regard to his patent, and was informed that Cornish had everything ready for the erection of a demonstration plant on the Otaki beach Permission, the accused had stated, had been obtained from the Government to erect the plant, the material for which ne had secured. Accused also stated that he expected to realise £7,500 from the patent. He admitted living on the sale of the shares for three or four months. Financial arrangements, he said, had been made with a gentleman at Wellington, who would be responsible for the costs. This concluded the case tor the n-~ ..town. No evidence was called for the defend!. In placing his case before the jury, the Crown Prosecutor pointed out that although many pecrle entereo those “wild cat” schemes foobshll and absurdly, these foolish ones hac 1.0 bq protected. The quesHou foi

consideration was in the first place whether the accused had made statements to the people involved, and ii he did, were they falsely made? Counsel detailed the evidence of the various witnesses.

THE DEFENCE. Counsel for the accused, in addressing the jury, said there was no silauuw ot doubt liial the accused had been badly Healed in this case. Ever since the initial enquiries had been inane, accused, had been confined and Iji'eevnled from having a chance to carry out his experiments. They might laugh at the idea of a scheme for harnessing Uie waves, but he would point out that many things that were considered impossible and visionary twenty-live years ago were now established facts. Who could say now whether accused had solved the problem he claimed, as he had obviously been prevented from proving fits claim just at the time when he was ready for a demonstration. Counsel pointed out aiso that tho people who had bought tiie shares had clone so with the express purpose of enabling accused personally I to carry out his experiments. He , would also point out that the evidjnee established that the buyers of j lie shares had literally chased the 1 tccused —in one case on a motor ■ycie. If attempts had been made, me could not, counsel contended, Irive them away with stockwhip for hey rushed headlong into the in•estment simply because there was a u'uspc.ct of a quick profit.

In summing up, His Honour explained that six separate charges vvcie preferred against accused, and each one would Lave to be taken separately and a decision arrived at on each. Six different persons were involved, but the transaction was essentially llio same in each case. Each bought a share and certain representations were made by accused. First tnc jury would have to consider whether accused had made statements to the persons alleged’, and secondly were these statements true ‘ : or false? If they were false, then Uie | purpose for which they were falsely j made would have to be found. Were they made to get money from certain people, and was the money secured by means of th" false representations? GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS. The jury retired at 3.10 p.rn., and after a retirement of thirty minutes, returned a verdict o t gui tty on j charges one, two and six, and not guilty on numbers three, four and live, the foreman asking for consideration on account of accused having t been detained for fourteen wee ks, k and tiie fact that he had a wife and family to maintain. His Honour said: “Though I shad lake into consideration the fact that accused has been detained in prison, X cannot treat him as a first offender, as this is not the first occasion on which lie had been in prison for this offence.” Sentence was deferred till this mornin g. A CAREER OF CRIME. PRISONER SENTENCED. PALMERSTON N.. Sept. 4. in the Supreme Court Joseph Har- I vey Cornish was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment.. Mr Justice Salmond, in sentencing prisoner, said the offences were not isolated ones, but cpi-odes in a career of crime.