TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2364, 21 January 1915, Page 5

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

CASE IN SYDNEY CONVICTION AND £200 FINE (Eeo, January 20, 10 p.m.) Sydney, January 20. . Frederick Erhard and Lionel Moss,' members of the firm of Groth and Com',' pany, oil and colour merchants, ants Muller, an employee, were charged to-i day with trading or attempting taj) trade with the enemy. * Counsel stated.that Moss was absentf in New Zealand, and pleaded not guiltsL on his behalf. ? The cas» for the Crown was thai' ' Erhard and Muller were naturalised! German subjects. The firm wrote a low tor to the Fuller Company, of Amer-i ioa, ordering white lead, and i inside this was another letter, for the UneeditP Company, of Holland, ordering painty whioh the Fuller Company -was aske<s to forward. The letter was posted itt the late-foe box, the Crown claiming) that the intention was that it should, thus escape the censors, but it did noW The letter requested tho Uneedit Com-} pany to obtain certain German goods* with instiructions thait all Getrroattl marks were to be removed. '■ They wore sent via America, as Dutch goods. It was also alleged thatj - doouments referring to the order were missing from tho usual file. Counsel for the defendants arguedi that his olients were doing only what every other business man was doing, trying to open new markets. There, was no evidence that he had traded, or, 1 attempted to trade, with the enemy., On counsel's suggestion the charge was altered to "attempting to trade"Erhard said that ho was the principal partner in Groth and Company. He I signed the letter in question and took the responsibility. All tho letter asked for was samples and quotations. • The reason for sending to America was to obviate the delay whioh would have occurred on the Suez route. Tho firm was honestly trying to open new markets' with goods which had been previously, obtained, jfl .-

;. The Magistrate agreed that there was I ,;•• to evidence jigainst Moss, who wafl ' ffsonwgea. The others were coayioted, ',■ %harOeing fined £200,-with the oik I- t10 ?'"•{?• ,? w6 tyS months' imprisonment, I and Muller £100, or sis months' im- ?■■■ pnsonment.