CASE AGAINST DUERKOP

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2356, 12 January 1915, Page 9

CASE AGAINST DUERKOP

CHARGE OF TRADING WITH THE, ENEMY THE DEFENCE The whole of yesterday afternoon was occupied at tho Magistrate's Court in the further hearing of the five charges against Henrich Wilhclm Magnus Duerkop, of the firm of Duerkop and Mackay, merchants, of Auckland, of attempting to supply persons in Germany with goods. Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., was on the bench, Mr. H. H. Ostler appearing for the Crown, and Mr. T. Neave for the defence.

Tho charges road 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 Gustav J. J. Witt, a person carrying on business in the territory ot such.foreign State, to wit, at Hamburg, certain goods, to wit 17 casks of casings; (2) a similar charge laid in respect to October 6, the charge reading, '\Did supply thirty-three casks and one oase 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 same date, ten casks of casingß; (5) of attempting to trade with the enemy'by supplying Gustav J. J. Witt and Co.'s Handelmaatschappis, a German firm trading at Rotterdam, for transmission to an enemy country, to wit, Germany, 9 casks and one oase oi casings."

The case for the proseoution having concluded, formal evidence as to the correspondence was taken. Counsel for the defence admitted all this "saving the question as to the relevancy of the correspondence."-

The Case for the Defence. In opening the defence, Mr. Neave said he deemed it advisable to .refer to accused's arrest in Auckland by the military authorities as it was the outcome of this, that the arrest had been made on the present alleged offences. The arrest had been made to allay any thoughts on the part of Auckland people as to accused having acted tho part of a spy or in any traitorous manner. Counsel suggested that there was in the minds of a great portion' of the Auckland public an impression . that accused had, and was, acting in ' a manner detrimental to the interests of the Empire. On the ; outbreak of war accused was warned that he must keep in touch with the police, and must not travel more than 25 miles from the" city. It had been accused's practice to spend, his week-ends with some of his friends at some watering places some distance from the city. Unfortunately one of these places was situated in close proximity to the Auckland forts. Accused wisely, but unfortunately, decided to change the location of his weekend trip. He went to a place called ■Brown's Bay, and indulged in bathing and long walks there. A number of the residents became' suspicious, and informed the police, with the result that Duerkop was apprehended. He ■ was searched, and some words-, in his diary referring, to 'some niaterials he had-been inspecting at his tailor's were taken to he signals. These suspicions were found to be entirely unfounded, as Mr. Ostler would admit.

Mr. Ostler: I have not seen, the diary. .. - . '.' •'■■' .

Mr. Neave: You may see it now. Mr. Ostler: It is all right. I will see. it later. ....

Mr. Neave proceeded; that the matters he had iust mentioned had been given great publioity in 'he Auokland papers, which mentioned the "German spy at Brown's Bay.' These v charges, against Duerkop had been found to be absolutely unfounded. When he bad been arrested, the authorities had deemed it advisable to make a thorough investigation of Duerkop's affairs. This accused welcomed, and as Mr. Ostler admitted, the examination had completely exculpated l defendant from the suspicion that he had acted traitorously. In the investigation it. was found that consignments which were ou the high seas long before the war started were on their way to Rotterdam, and this led to the present charges being laid against Duerkop. Acoused's Further* History. Mr. Neave ihen proceeded to give a sketch ,of accused's career He was 26 years of age, not 38 as stated. Some years ago he made a,trip to Africa, and returned in such a state of bad health that he was granted a complete exemption from training by the German military authorities. Consequently he knew absolutely nothing about-military matters, the whole of his career being spent in commercial pursuits. Later Duerkop went to Samoa, and later to Auckland, when he engaged in the entirely new trade that he was in when arrested. Accused paid a visit to England and to Hamburg later, and cameinto contact with the firm of J. J. Witt and Co. When war broke out accused's firm had on the high seas a number of consignments to J. J. Witt, Hamburg. On August 10, five days after the war broke out, an Act was passed which made it illegal for any person to supply any goods to an enemy's firm. Points for the Defence. They were not- really goods, continued counsel, but'consignments. Had defendant's firm allowed these goods to go on to Hamburg then they would have been liable, but it was the fact that they were diverted to a neutral country—-Rotterdam. Counsel relied on that for his defence. There was not a tittle of evidence in all the correspondence to show that goods had ever reached Hamburg. Counsel for the prosecution had endeavoured to make out that there was a sinister intentionto send the goods on to Hamburg. AVas it not just, said counsel, to suppose that these goods, which were consigned to a Dutch company, were used to assist the two millions of Belgian people whom the Dutch Government were assisting to feed? ■At this stage there was an argument between counsel and the Magistrate as to the identity of the two firms, Gustav J. J. Witt, Hamburg, and Gustav J. J. Witt and Co., Handelmaatschappis, Rotterdam. Counsel held that the latter was a Dutch firm, and could not bo taken as the enemy. The names of the two were only similar. The Magistrate disagreed, remarking that it was most unlikely. Mr. Neave then proceeded to quote the correspondence to support his contention. Counsel quoted the second letter sent, the context of which he held clearly showed that defendant's firm was opening up business with a now firm— the Dutch one—in Rotterdam. Mr. Ostler; How about the words: "As I told you before" in Duerkop's letter to the firm?. Mr. Neave: That is the only thing in the whole letter which might bo "inconsistent." Later Mr. Neave said the words quoted were just a slip of the pen. Counsel continued that it- was admitted that there was a business relationship betwoen the two firms, and wont on to say that Mr. Ostler wished to make out that just because the goods were sent to Rotterdam—a neutral country —they were sending thorn to Hamburg. This because the names of the two firms.were similar. The proclamation read; "Supplying or attemptI ing to supply goods to people residing I in an enemy's country.'- The onlj. evi-

dence before the Court was thai the goods were sent to a neutral country. Mr. Neave went on to refer to what the Crown considered the most "incriminating evidence" put forward. This was the envelope from Gustav Witt, under date August 27, to Duerkop and' Mackay, which bore the Rotterdam postmark, and was superscribed with the Dutch firm's name. The fact that defendant had kept this envelope, said counsel, was a proof of his honesty. Defendant was not a fool, continued counsel, and was it likely that lie would carefully file all this correspondence under the very nose of the police if ho were conspiring to trade with the enemy?

Besides the correspondence "selected" by Mr. Ostler there were other letters which showed that Rotterdam was not the only place accused had carried on negotiations for trade, as tho United States, Japan, and other countries had been written to. Counsel proceeded to review and quote the correspondence to support his contentions. He asked the Magistrate to. observe the name of Gustav J. JWitt on the firm's business letter-paper, where only Hamburg was mentioned. If the firm had a branch in Rotterdam, he said, would it not have been consistent with other firms' business letterpaper to have mentioned that it had a Branch in Rotterdam ?-

Legal Advice on the Question. Counsel went on to refer to the fact of accused having received legal advice. Mr. Algie, a responsible legal man of Auckland,. had informed him that he was committing no offence in sending the goods .to Rotterdam. This fact proved conclusively that accused did not mean to evade tbe law. The Magistrate: Surely he was not advised that? Mr. Neave: Yes, he was, and-more-over I will take the responsibility of advising anyone that it would not be illegal to trade with an incorporated company drawn up in with the laws of a neutral country. In conclusion Mr. Neave said that there was absolutely no case to send accused to the Supreme Court. The whole of the correspondence showed that there was an honest intention to carry out the law. The fact that the goods were diverted to Rotterdam proved this. If Mr. Ostler could show a word in all the correspondence that pointed to the goods being sent on from Rotterdam to Hamburg then perhaps the case could go to .the Supreme Court. Mr. Ostler: There is the inference to this fact in the correspondence. Mr. Neave: A man cannot be committed for trial on inference.

Mr. Ostler: Yes, he can. This concluded the case for the defence. The Magistrate's Remarks. "The only question for me to decide," said the Magistrate, "is as to whether the Crown has made out that the firm accused was trading with was a firm in a foreign State at war with England. I think the correspondence shows sufficiently that accused was trading with Germany, also that he knew that the firm h» was trading with was a branch of Gustav Witt's. I don't think it right that this Court should go into the letters or comment on them. Howover, I think it is a case that should go to. the Supreme Court,, though the evidence, in my opinion, is not very strong." Mr. Neave. stated that accused was desirous of giving evidence in the box, and the case was consequently further .adjourned to January 18. Bail was allowed as before in £100. -