LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2442, 22 April 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

TRADING WITH THE

ENEMY

DUERKOP'S SENTENCE

£100 JFINE IMPOSED

Sentence was passed by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday 011 Wilhelra Heinrich Magnus Duerkop, who was convicted rocently. on charges of liis having traded with tile enemy. The penalty imposed was £100, and if Duerkop defaults in payment he will have to go to prison for three months.

Duerkop was arrested whilo-carrying on business in Auckland as a partner in a firm of merchants styled Duerkop and Mackay. Tho allegations. against Duerkop wero that he had traded with the enemy by supplying and attempting to supply Gust-ay J. J Witt, a Hamburg merchant, with sausago casings nud other goods. The goods wero addressed to Witt's company at Rotterdam, but the Crown contended that they were intended for transmission to Germany. Duerkop was adjudged guilty, and yesterday morning ho was brought up for sentence.

Mr. Neave, counsel for Duerkop, addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner. He said that Duerkop and Mackay wero young men who had set up business in Auckland as exporters of wool anil by-products. To a great extent their trade was with German firms, and the transactions concerned in the prosecutions had been commenccd before the outbreak of war. A number of cargoes_ were already on the water when hostilities between the nations were opened. Duerkop then took advice as to tho legality of his trade, and as a result of the advice lie entered into fresh negotiations. Duerkop had honestly believed that he was acting within the law, and counsel asked His Honour to take into consideration that belief. and also the fact that the prisoner's business had been destroyed.

Duerkop then addressed His Honour. He said that he regretted that his actions had been deemed to be in contravention of the law. When he committed those actions he honestly believed that he was acting within his rights; He went on to say that none of the firm's records of transactions had been concealed, and that he had given his prosecutors assistance and information. Apart from the question of alleged trading with the enemy, he thought he had strictly adhered to the conditions imposed upon enemy subjects. He desired to say that the prosecution had given him every opportunity to prepare his defence by liberating him. Hi 3 trial, he believed, had. been conducted without any "feeling" or national prejudice. He would now commit himself to the justice of the Court.

His Honour agreed that it was quite true that tlie jury had not been influenced by any national resentment; their -findings were the only verdict which they, as honest men, could return. He thought prisoner would find that British Courts of Justice did not allow such feelings to operate against a person on trial. His Honour went on to,say that the case differed from the ordinary ca-ses of with the enemy because the negotiations were commenced before the war. Apparently, prisoner had not _ attempted to keep ' back anything from the Court, and ho had made copies of all trade letters. The case was not a parallel of the Samoa case, beoause Duerkop had not wilfully violated the law, but had continued the negotiations after a consultation with a solicitor. Prisoner seemed to have thought that he was'not breaking the law by trading with a Dutch company. The proclamation alon« would not have made his actions liable to the verdict, but there were statutory provisions againet what he had done. The Court had held that j in continuing' negotiations after the commencement of war Duerkop had violated the law. It was right for the Government to prosecute so as to show those of. foreign nationality that it was a serious and punishable thing to track? with the enemy. However, in view of all the circumstances, His Honour would be lenient, and would_ impose a fine of £100. Two weeks' time would be allowed in which to find tho money, and in default of payment of the fine, Duerkon would have to undergo threo months' imprisonment.