“RISE AND FALL OF SEA.”

Shannon News, 6 July 1923, Page 3

“RISE AND FALL OF SEA.”

- ALLEGATIONS AGAINST INVENTOR. CHARGES OF FALSE PRETENCES. i At the Levin Court on Wednesday before Messrs H. J. Richards and S. Inder, Joseph. Harvey Cornish wa*s charged with “that, on or about the 9th day of March, 1923, at Levin, he did obtain from Jabez Bebhington the sum of £5 by means false pretences, to wit, by falsely slating that a solicitor of Otaki had purchased 100 shares in the invention which he, the inventor, had discovered for utilising the rise and fall of the sea, 'and had paid £SOO in cash for same.” Further charges of a similar nature respecting sales of shares to Ivan Neville Drake, farmer, of Manakau., and Frances Louisa Bebbington; were also preferred. Detective Sergt. Quirke, of Palmerston North, appeared for the police, the accused being unrepresented by counsel. ; , .Jabez Bebbingfon, sworn, stated that on or about 12th March, he 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 tin Otaki wais a half partner with him, having taken 110' shares in the invention at a, price of £SOO. He said that he had 100 remaining shares and was- selling 25 of these to obtain finance. He stated that agreements had been drawn up by a solicitor who wais in partnership with him. He stated further that provisional protection had been taken out over the patent. He h(ad made a test in a bath' and had found it successful. In answer to an enquiry he stated that he had also made a trial 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 Levin or- Manakau. As- the result of these representatioP'j witness had pur. ch'pbed one share, at £5, and had received a document, produced, covering the sale.

In answer to a'question from accused, .witness did not remember Mr Hockihgton. of Lyall Bay, Wellington, whom accused had said owned a half share in the invention. Accused: Did I not str.te that Mr Hockington had a half share in the patentWithess: I don’t remember you (loin ef so. I understood that the miah in Otaki was your partner. Accused: Did I not say that Mr Hoekington was financing the .scheme, which if successful would be a big thing, but that if it were nbt a success, you would probably lose your money?

Witness: No. In (answer to Detective-Sergt. Quirke witness stated that he had purchased the share solely on what accused- had said about the solicitor in Otaki, having taken ia* half , share in the invention. -•

Frances Louisa Bebbingfon, wife of the previous witness, deposed*-' that • about the beginning of March, accused came to the Grand Hotel and had a conversation with her husband in her presence regarding some shares in 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. He had (stated that he had come to Levin to get parts made for the invention and that he had! 20 shares to sell, whichwere worth £IOO each, but which could be bought for £5. As the result of these statements her husband had bought a share *in the invention" for which the agreement produced had beeii tendered. A few days later accused - again called at the hotel and spoke to her. He stated that he still had one or two shares to sell and would- let her have one share if she wished to buy it. She had bought the share, paying £5 for it. Her reason ■’for buying the share was because her husband had.already bought one. Had she 1 known that the accused’s representation about the lawyer in Qtaki was untrue she would not have bought it.

Cross-examined by (accused she remembered accused reading out -a list of names.of peoples interested in the invention in Otaki. including that of Mr Dunkley, but did not know any of them.- She did not remember any mention of Mr Hockington, of Lyali Bay or she could not remember anything s&id.of Mr Dunkley, except' that • he was a solicitor n Otaki, and could not say whether the accused had stated- tihat he hiad one share or was a half share partner. A. M.Dunkley, solicitor, of Otaki, de- ' posed that he knew the accused and was not a partner in the invention and jhad not purchased any shares from him. , Ivan-Neville Drake, farmer, of Mannkau, 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 the rise and 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 stated . that he 'had tested the invention in a bath with a Gane milking machine pulsator and the result was satisfactory. He said that Mr Byron Brown-hiad offered .to invest £IOOO in the invention, but accused had refused the offer. He made the remark that he was'particular-to 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 mondfy In the scheme, he liad taken a share, paying £5 for it. ‘ It was the statement that Mr Byron Brown was interested in the invention which had induced him to ,invest. , ■ In answer to accused, witness said

the conversation in which Mr Brown was mentioned had taken place in the cowshed, iamd afterwards in the Manakau Hotel. He remembered the mention of a partner in Wellington, hut the name of this partner was hot mentioned. He understood that accused •• had only .a half-share, and remembered his statement that he had pot the , proposition to Mr Byron Brown, but Vi(M^ot.remember Him saying tlmt Mr

Brown had said that the scheme was too much in its initial -stage and that later he might be willing to go into it. He remembered the statement that it 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 I refused a £IOOO 'and was willing to sell these shares at £125.

Witness: I understood that it would not leave sufficient inteest for you, if you sold the number of shares Mr Brown, required.

Witness • No. Accused: Did I ‘a,sk you to buy 0 share in the invention.

Byron Paul Brown, retired farmer, living in Wellington, sworn, denied having at any .time made accused an offer of £IOOO or any other sum for an interest in his patent. The accused was informed that the witness wa,s leaving the country next month and that he would have no farther chance of cross-examining himt but stated that he had no desire to challenge witness’s statement. Thomas Edward Holmes,, detective, Palmerston North, gave evidence that, as a result of complaints received from various purchasers of shares, he 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 t(^answer any questions. In company with Constable McGregor they had gone to the Shannon Police Court where accused signed a statement, produced, to the effect .that during about, three months *he had sold 30 £SO shared 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 w!a:s taken* out, the papers being held by Messrs Park and Sons, patent attorneys, Wellington. He stated that he had told purchasers of shares that, if the invention was & success they would receive 'about £75. but if it was not they would lose their money,; There was no written agreement between Hockington. and himself. He had made successful trials of the invention and a demonstrating plant for which his partner would pay would later be erected.

On 28th May he arrested accused at Foxton. Accused had the sum of 15s lOd in his possession, which he stated was the only money he possessed. 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 be borne hv Mr Hockington. of Lyali Bay. Accused had a. book of promissory notes in his possession on the back'of one of which was a list of names which accused stated were the names of shareholders. Amongst these names were those of Bebbington and Drake. Accused stated that he had received approximately £l5O from the sale of shares prior to his arrest. On July 2 he informed accused that, he would he charged as at present and accused toad stated that toe wished Byron Brown would offer the £IOOO for the third share.

This concluded the ca.se for the police. Accused pleaded not. guilty and Was committed to the Supreme Court in Palmerston on August 7, for trial, the Bench intimating that several htiher charges would then be preferred against him.