HARNESSING SEA POWER!

Shannon News, 4 September 1923, Page 3

HARNESSING SEA POWER!

INVENTOR GUILTY OF FRAUD. NOVEL SUPREME COURT CASE. By ull'iising the power of '.he swell of the sea, and turning it towards the production of electricity for industrial energy, Joseph Harvey Cornish proposed to revolutionise industry in New Zealand, but through his failure to produce any practical proof of the usefulness of his invention, the people from whom he secured n. mey to assist him in the venture, laid informations against him. Yesterday Cornish appeared before His Hmoar Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court to answer a number of charges of false pretences in regard to his purported invention. The indictment alleged that Joseph Harvey Cornish, at Levin on or about March, 9, 1923, with intent to defraud did obtain from one Jabez Bebbington the sum of £5 by falsely representing that a solicitor of Otaki had put in £SOO for the purchase of 100 shares in accused’s invention for utilising the rise and fall of the swell of the sea. There were five other charges of similar false representation by accused, involving persons at Shannon and Levin, and sums rangingfrom £lO to £2 10/. In two of the charges it was alleged that Cornish had represented to the proposed promoters that the Government had offered him £SOOO for the invention, and that the money had been refused. He was also alleged to have stated that the invention had been successfully tried at Three King’s Island, and on the sea beach at Otaki and Foxton. Mr F. H. Cooke (Crown Prosecutor) handled the case for the Crown, whilst Mr Merton appeared for the accused.

The following jury was empanelled:—William Williamson, Jabez Bernard Wilton, James Adjrmson, Richard Arthur Hart, Charles Taylor, William Hunter, George A, Butler, Alfred Seifert, Ole Marcus Christien, George Wilson Wililam George Hull and Frederick Jackson (foreman). ' In outlining the case for the prosecution, Mr Cooke traversed the salient features of -the allegations against accused, pointing out that it. was no '-concern of the jury whether the invention was good, 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 Wa.s as “old as the hills” —, ’but it appear : 'ed 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 waA alleged to have stated that the invention was divided into 200 shares, 100 of which he himself held, and the other 100 he was attempting to dispose of by travelling around the country. There were six charges, counsel pointed.out, the accused alleged by making false representation both as to the possibility of his invention and as to a. rejected offer of ,£5.000 for it fiom the Government. In a numoer of cases accused had succeeded in getting people to acquire interest to the extent ot one £5 share. It was understood by the “shareholder:-” that the sharewere for' £SO, and would eventuate prove of the value of £75, £SO of which would be retained in the scheme. This would leave a possible profit to the investor of £2O over Jiir £5 share. Accused travelled the country for three months and during that time disposed of 32 shares. When arrested, Cornish was alleged to have stated that the invention had not. been tried, neither did he ,have a working model of any description. Each charge, on account of a differentiation 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 stated that he had a half share (100 shares) and that a solicitor at Otaki had agreed to invest £SOO in the venture. Accused asked witness to take a share, stating that he 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 further to protect it Cornish also said he had tried the invention at the Foxton bar, and also on the Otaki beach, each trial proving a success. Accused stated that his reason for coming to Levin was in order to obtain necessary apparatus for the working of the invention, which could not be procured at Otaki. Witness took a share, giving accused a £5 note, and accepted the explanation that the invention would be a great success, and would revolutionise the engineering world in 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 disposing of their rights. To Mr Merton: When accused approached witness at Levin, it was the first occasion he had seen him, and after a conversation of-ten minutes’ duration, witness, agreed to take the

share. Accused did not show witness any specifications. Witness entered the agreement <fh the understanding that there was an element of risk

“like putting a fiver on the totalisator.” Cornish said at the time that he could not guarantee success of the patent, though he expresesd full confidence in it.

The depositions of Mrs Bebbington, taken in the lower Court, were accepted, on account of her inability to attend through illness. The statement was on lines similar to that of the previous witness, and the conversation between Bebbington and accused was described. Later witness also, bought a share from accused, as she considered the venture a sound oue - • iiJi&l “TO GET RID OF HIM.”

Arthur L. Dunkley, a solicitor practising at Otaki, said accused had asked Mm, for the loan of £l. “He asked me for some money,” said the witness, “stating that he expected some to arrive on the following day. As he loosed an honest and genuine man, and for the sake of his struggling wife and family, as well as to get rid of him, I gave him the money. Accused said he was coming to Olaki to work as a contractor. Later he came back and as security for the loan gave me a share in his patent—a different one to that which is under review at present. He was full of patents.” Continuing witness said he made 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 “more out of benevolence than anything,” that he gave him the £1 for the share. Witness did not agree to take a half interest in the invention. TRIED IN A BATH. In conned ion with the third charge, Ivan N. Drake gave evidence of a visit being paid him by accused on March last. It was then stated that the patent, for which provisional protection had been acquired, had been tried in a bath, and the details of the scheme were described to witness. Accused also represented that a Mr Byron Brown had offered him £IOOO for the patent, (he offer being refused. “I knew Mr Brown,” continued the witness, "and as I had confidence 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 after the transaction, and . Was assureJ that the story had been told prior to the passing of the money. MUNIFICENT WEALTH.

Alice Francis Churcher . 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 larger demonstration would be held on the Otaki beach, and all the-share-holders 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 £SOOO or £7OOO from the oG-vernment had been refused. “As sooji as the 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 case tjie overtures for the purchase of shares were made by witness. After receiving l the required information he took a share, paying as a first instalment £2 10'/-. 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 he would put 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 FRIEND. Louis Edgar A. Poach, said in his evidence that he had known accused since 1902. When Cornish aproached him with a detailed account of. the patent of a scheme for harnessing the waves of the sea, it was. stated in reply to witness’s query that a 3-inch cylinder would produce 4| h.p. Accused also gave him to understand that he had refused an offer of £SOOO- from the Government and was intending forming a compa.ny for the working of the invention. STATEMENT TO THE POLICE.

Detective T. E. Holmes, who handled the case in the lower Court, told the Court of his initial interview with accused at Shannon on May 25 last. When asked about the shares accused offered to answer any question that witness might wish to put to him. Accused went 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. He did not promise any specific date for the demonstration. The shares he was selling were his own and he considered the money derived therefrom was his own personal property. Continuing, witness described having arrested the accused at Foxton on May 28, and charging him with the oiTonre of false representation against Mr 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 re-

eeived £l5O which had been'used to keep his wife and family, as well as to extinguish his back debts. He admitted that he had not done any other work for four months. His monetary possessions amounted to 15/10, which he requested be sent to his -wife and family, at Foxton, who were requiring assistance. Cornish also stated 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, a,nd later said: "I wish Mr Byron Brown would offer me £IOOO for a third share.’-’ To Mr Merton: 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 he 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 for the Crown. No evidence was called for the defence.

In placing his case before the jury, the Crown Prosecutor pointed out that although many people entered these' “wild cat” schemes foolishly and absurdly, these foolish *ones had to be protected. The question for consideration was in the first place whether the accused had made statements to the people involved, and if 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 shadow of doubt that the accused had been badly treated in this case. Ever since the initial enquiries had been made, accused, had been confined and preevnted from having a chance to carry out his experiments. They might la.ugh at the idea of a scheme for harnessing the waves, but he would point out that many things that were considered impossible and visionary twenty-five 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 his claim just at the time when he was ready for a demonstration. Counsel pointed out also that the people who had bought the shares had done so with the express purpose of enabling accused personally to carry out his experiments. He would also point out that the evidence established that the buyers of the shares had literally chased the accused—in one case on a motor cycle. If attempts had been made, one could not, counsel contended, drive them away with stockwhip for they rushed headlong into the investment simply beea,use there was a prospect of a quick profit. In summing up, His Honour explained that six separate charges were preferred against accused, and each one would have to be taken separately and a decision arrived at on each. Six different persons were involved, but the transaction was essentially the same in each case. Each bought a share and certain representations were made by accused. First the 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 the purpose for which they were falsely ma.de would have to be found. Were they made to get money from certain people, and was the money secured by means of the false representations? GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and after a retirement of thirty minutes, returned a verdict of guilty on charges one, two and six, and not guilty on numbers three, four and five, the foreman asking for consideration on account of accused having be< n detained for fourteen weeks, and the fact that he had a wife and family to maintain. His Honour said: "Though I shad take into consideration the fact that accused has been detained in prison, T cannot treat him as a first offender, as this Is not the first occasion on which ho had been in prison for this offence.”

Sentonce was deferred till this ■morning.

ACCUSED SENTENCED

On appearing this morning .accussed was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.