GERMAN MERCHANT CHARGED

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2354, 9 January 1915, Page 9

GERMAN MERCHANT CHARGED

VOLUMINOUS CORRESPONDENCE

REVIEWED

€££E FOR THE CROWN

«H6 .hearing of the five oharges gainst HeinriohiWilholni Magnus Duerjiccp, of the firm of Duerkop and Mac-. gSy, merchants, of Auckland, of atsSnpting to supply persons in Germany goods, was cpened before Mr. D. «». A. Cooper, S.M.,.in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. The charges read as follow.—(1) Being a partner in a firm of merchants carrying on business at Auckland . . . under the name of Duerkop and Mackay, on or about September 17, at Auckland, at a time while His-Majesty was, at war with a foreign State, to wit, the Empire of Germany, did attempt to supply Gustay J. J. Witt, a person carrying on busi-. aess in the territory of 6uoh foreign State, .to wit, at Hamburg, certain , goods, to'wit, 17 of casings; (2) a similar charge laid in respect to October 6, the charge reading, "Did supply thirty-three casks and one case of casings"; (3) in respect to. October 28, of "attempting to supply 19 bales of sheepskins, 12 sacks of cowtails, and . 14 sacks-of-glue pieces";; (4) on the came date; ten casks of casings; (5) of attempting to trade with the enemy by supplying GustavJ." J..Witt and Co.'s Handelmaatschappis, a German, from trading at Rotterdam, for transmission to an enemy country, to wit, Germany, 9 casks and one case of casings." Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the Crown, and Mr. T.' Neave for tho prisoner. Mr. Qstler raid: in opening the case that four of the charges had been laid under Section 85 of the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, 1914. It was "set out_ in that section that at any time while His Majesty- was at war. with a foreign nation, it would be unlawful for any person to supply any goods, wares, or merchandise to the territory of such foreign power or to any person resident or carrying on business there. This Bection had been passed on August 10, and repealed on November 2 by Section 2 of the Trading With- the' Enemy Act, 1914. The penalty of trading with the enemy was five years' imprisonment or a fine of £1000, or both. Something About the Accused. Referring to accused, Mr. Ostler said he was a native of Hamburg, was 32 years of age, and appeared to have had a very sound commercial training: He had travelled abroad, having been in business in West Africa, Tonga, and New Zealand. Accused had left the firm of Langguth and Co., Auckland, in 1912, and had entered into partnership, with J. H. Mackay, in a business which appeared to be the purchase and export or New Zealand products to the Continent. The firm * dealt in hides, skins, arid- sausage casings. "Duerkop, said counsel, "ie possessed of great business -ability ana energy and commercial integrity."' No Traitorous or Disloyal Apt. There was no suggestion in the correspondence that pointed to defendant having acted in a traitorous manner, •nor in anything disloyal or detrimental to the Empire. The only think was. that : defendant had disobeyed the provisions 'of the Statutes. • I' In' 1913, continued Mr.'-Ostler, Mr. : Duerkop trip, .to, England,.and j Germany, ajtdv'gotr.in touchfwithio.-.firni | Gustavo J. J. Witt, who-were "interestled in the import.of sausage casings. : The-. wh.<jle -of the evidence was oorI Tespondence which-had-come to Duer*. i kop and Mackay. All these letters were i admitted, so that there' would be' no 'necessity to call evidence. -"What your jiWorshipis toregardin this correspondence,"' said oounsel, "is. tho intention iof the writer." .. ._'."_ Mr.-Neave said that-his olient-wished! 'the correspondence to be read, for upon jit he relied to a large extent to refute 'the charges against him. Counsel subimitted that the first four informations [which had been laid-under the Act 'which had been repealed before the | laying of the informations, must now be f dismissed. Mr. Neave referred to Sec-. ! tion 5 of the Crimes Act in support of ' his contention. Mr. Ostler replied by quoting the , j!Acts Interpretation Act, which provided that notwitb standing _ the repeal f of an Act, all offences committed before • such'repeal might be punished. The I question was one for the Supreme .Court,' said, counsel. : The Magistrate agreed, and said the question could be reserved for the Su--.preme Court to deal with. The Correspondence, Mr. Ostler then went on to review and comment on the voluminous correspondence concerned in the shipping abroad of the products which defendant's firm traded in. Counsel submitted that 'the letters showed clearly that Duerkop knew that the ultimate destination of the goods shipped was Germany. The letters dated.back before war was declared. The first intimation of war was in a letter which referred to a "war scare," which, had increased the shipping charges. Later,- a' letter had come from the German firm stating thatwar had been declared, and that-the writers were "sorry that the prosperous business wouid now probably go to rack and ruin." The correspondence went .or to 6how that the shipment referred 'to in the oponing charge, that of 17 .casks of casings valued at £304 25., had 'been carried on from Australia by the "firth," and war having broken out 'bad been captured on the high seas by a British ; warship and then.taken on to Colombo. Duerkop had instructed a shipping, company there to tranship ; them on to Rotterdam. In Tespeet to another shipment of 16 casks of casings, the correspondence showed that the steamer Seidiitz had taken ten casks of these on board in Australia, and when war had been declared had gone on to a neutral port, leaving six casks behind. These six casks, along with another shipment, had been shipped •from Sydney to Batavia, and thence to Rotterdam, where they were due to arrive on' December 19. Referring to a letter of.October 6, counsel submitted that it showed knowledge on'accused's ' part of the ultimate destination of another shipment of goods as Germany. Many other letters were referred to and read, and on these Mr. Ostler submitted that accused had knowledge whore the goods were bound. The strongest link in all the' evidence put forward, said Mr. Ostler, and which showed not only that Gußtav Witt and the Dutch Company were really tho samo interest, and.also that defendant knew of it, was a letter from Gustav iWitt : under date August 27 to Duerkop and Mackay, which had been written from Hamburg while it bore the Rotterdam postmark was superscribed Gustav Witt and Co.'s Handelmaatschappis. The correspondence took over two hours-to Teview, and at the conclusion further hearing of the case was adjourned to. Monday, at 2.15 p.m. Mr. Neave stated his intention of then placing- accused in tho box.