- 8 -
cbtain their corrupt funds from those persons who po duscrib.d as owners and operators of vice establishments collectively, but that (sic) each of them individuelly 'protected' a Superrte group of owners or opertors, but the evidence of the 'collectors' of corrunt Tunds that is, P5, 7, 8, 9 end 13, indicate otherwise."
The evidence of the "collectors" to which refer ncc is there arde
is evidence that two of the statin sergeants successively succeeded to the "business" of the first. From that it is clear that the serg ants were party to the conspiracy alleged and that is enough.
We have said more than sufficient to indicate that the appeals must be dismissed but for the sake of completeness we mention Hr. Scrivener's points regarding cortain of the documentary evidence. Mr. Sceats, for the Crown concedes that in raching his finding as to what bank accounts voro maintained by the first appellant in the United Kingdom the judg, reli:d upon the first spellent's Reply to the s.1 Notice served upon him and that the judge should not have bed regard to this Reply, which related to the second charge against the first appellant, in respect of the conspiracy charge.
It is lir. Scrivener's further contention that certain other documents rel: tin; to th: 5.K. bank accounts of both appellants should not have been admitted as uvidence of the truth of their contents. is express no concluded opinion upon that but the question remains whether, ignoring those documents, there was evidence upon which the trial judge could have found that the bank accounes in question voru in fret the accounts of ch rospective appellants or accounts over which they mercind control.
In regard to the first appellant the accounts in question were one at Borciye Jonk Limited, Old Trafford, Manchester and onc t the Natil Westinster Bank Limited at Bakewell in Derbyshire. Additi nally then was on account in the name of the wife of the first abellant at Barclay San: Limited, 37, Park Rod, Leeds. There is evidence of regulär payments into the accounts by means of bent drafts during the period charged. Such payments total sor ther £103,000 and the bank drafts were purchased with monies in the illicit bank accounts into which the prot.ction" monies were paid. That the first appellant had a conn ction with anchester is clear from the flet th t at one time he served as a member of th t