“ROGUE OR FOOL”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 810, 2 November 1929, Page 18

“ROGUE OR FOOL”

QUARTERLY DIVIDENDS CO. SECRETARY IN COURT ACTUARY’S EVIDENCE Press Association INVERCARGILL,, Today. I The case against the agent of Quarterly Dividends. Limited, and National House Purchase, Limited, ; David Neilson Johnson, of Dunedin, tv as concluded in the Invercargill ! Police Court yesterday afternoon. The ; magistrate said he would give his decision on Tuesday. . . Johnston was charged that, on or about March 15, 1928, he obtained, with intent to defraud, from Andrew Lindsay Wilson, the sum of £34 by falsely representing that • any person, by paying £1 to Quarterly Dividends, Limited, together with an entrance fee of la and a further sum of £ 1 to National House Purchase, Limited, and thereafter paying £ 1 a month for 15 months to National House Purchase, Limited, would reach the benefits of the £5,000 class in Quarterly Dividends, Limited, in approximately 71 years. There are five other similar j charges. Mr. J. H. Macalister, Crown Prose-, cutor, said that the companies had been registered under the Companies Act in England some years ago. He claimed that the promoter and secretary of the two companies, William Taverner, was ,a convicted criminal and promised to show that the scheme was plain fraud. It was necessary for him to give some idea of the operations of the two companies. Quarterly Dividends, Limited, and National House Purchase, Limited, of which the defendant was secretary in New Zealand. There was a small capital. Shortly after the companies started in New Zealand William Taverner toured the Dominion and received a very hostile reception from the Press everywhere. ‘A man named Moir had been secretarybefore defendant, who had addressed meetings in Southland. He had made promises and told what the scheme would bring. He also travelled with Bibles. He came with a Bible in one hand and a gold brick in the other. The scheme was very involved—intentionally involved —so that anyone who did not read the scheme carefully would be inclined to invest. The scheme had been denounced and exploded, and yet accused had still carried on operations. It was not known what interest accused had, but he had been collecting so assiduously that he must have a decided interest in the scheme.

Mr. J. C. L. White, of Dunedin, who represented accused, said he was surprised that the magistrate had not accepted jurisdiction to try the cases summarily. Tjje Intricacy of the scheme was of such an extraordinarynature that it would be w-ell nigh impossible for 12 laymen on a jury to comprehend it. “GET RICH QUICK”

The Government actuary, Cecil Gostelow, read a report discoursing upon the unsoundness of the scheme. Summing up he said it was of the “get rich quick" or "bubble” type, and must eventually come to ah untimely end, with disastrous results to thousands of comparatively poor people. It was not too much, he said, to describe the scheme as an impudent swindle, run for the benefit of the promoters, and, to a lesser extent, ot the original members.

Following lengthy evidence, the Crown Prosecutor said the nature of the false pretences in each case was practically the same, with one exception. It had been clearly proved by a number of witnesses called that accused had stated that, by paying the sums mentioned, a depositor would reach the £5,000 class. He claimed that it had been definitely proved that the achievement of results was, and had been at the time of the alleged offences, quite impossible for the companies to carry out. The Government actuary had emphasised the impossibility of the companies to carry out their promises. The whole nature and trend of the statements made had been intended to lead people to believe that the companies would carry out what accused said they would. The only inference the court would claim was that accused was either a rogue or an arrant fool. He was obviously not an arrant tool, as he had gone about deluding a number of people, and the natural inference was that the man was a rogue. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that a strong prima facie case had been established, and that accused should be committed for trial. Mr. White said he personally did not know whether the scheme was sound or not. Accused said it was, and that it was a scheme in operation all ovter the world. The first time that it should be the subject of a criminal prosecution was, as it were, at the world's end. If it was believed that a definite criminal offence had been committed, the Crown would have to prove that the representation was an existing fact, that it was false, and that accused knew it was false. The evidence of some of the witnesses, said Mr. White, was uncertain. There was no proof that accused knew that the statements he was making were untrue, and counsel submitted that there was no such evidence in the present case.

The magistrate stated that he would give his decision on Tuesday.