THE LEVY CASE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2865, 1 September 1916, Page 6

THE LEVY CASE

THE DEFENCE

QUESTION OF WILFULNESS RAISED ' LEVY UNDER FIRE MAGISTRATE RULES OUT LEGAL POINTS Tho case against Abraham Levy, of breaking his Stato contract to supply military uniforms, passed through it 6 third day of hearing yesterday. The Crown closed its case, and counsel for the defence-addressed the Court, raising points on which they asked the Magistrate to throw out the caso for tho Crown. Tho Magistrate ruled against Levy's counsel, who then turned to the production of evidence. In giving an indication of the nature of the evidence which would be called, counsel said that it would be sought to establish that Levy had not wilfully broken his contract, and that, therefore, he was not criminally liable. _ Levy himself was put in the box late in the aiterroon, and, after -giving' his evidence in chief, lie was subjected to a lively and interesting cross-examination by Mr. .Macassey, who prosecutes for the Crown. . . The wording of the charge against Levy is: "That at Wellington, on June 23, he did wilfully break a fiontract mado by him. with the Crown on January 10, 1916, for tho purpose of the prosent war, to wit, a contract for the supply of mili- . tary uniforms by delivering to tho Crown in pursuance of that contract goods which were not in accordance .with the terms thereof, contrary to regulation 12 of the regulations dated. November 15, 1915, made pursuant to the War Regulations Act-, 1914." I'hdro are seven other. charges concerning June 27, June 29, July 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11. Mr. L'. G. R-eitl, S.M., is hearing the case. Mr. P.' S. Macassey is prosecuting, and Messrs. A. Gray, K. 0., and M. Myers -are'defending.

Cotton Sewn Carments not Serviceable. - When the Court resumed, Mr. Macassey called Wm. Moeller, manager of Cathie and Son's Clothing Factory,' Wellington. Eft-presented a statement showing that the cost of linfi-u thread for Levy's contract for five months would be £316 ,15s. 7d., and tho oost of cotton £175 6s. Id., a difference of £141 9s. 6d. Cotton thread was not suitable for use in the sewing of the seams of military, garments. Mr. Gray: Have you made garments for Levy's factory? Moeller: Yes. When war first broke out we made some under a sub-con-tract. Mr. Gray: Do you know.if there are a good many in Wellington making garments for the Defence Department? Moeller: Yes, a good number. Mr. Gray (handing witness a tunic): Can you say whether this is sewn with linen thread or cotton? Moeller': It is difficult .to tell. .-• Moeller examined the garment for some time, and then' said it was sewn with cotton.

Mr. Macassey: But it is not a seam you took thai out of ._ Moeller then ripped' a soam, and stated that it had been sewn with linen thread. ' . Thomas Sprott, manager for Frank and Bryce, Ltd., stated that his firm in England were the manufacturers of Knox's linen, He had had twenty years experience in this line. Cotton was not used in the seams of clothing. Mr. Macassey: What is.the objection to it? ,i ' Snrott: It is not so durable. Why do yon say that?—"My experience 'of testing it is that it is not so strong." And as regards moisture?—"My experience is that the linen thread is a far superior article." | What would he the effect of moisture (such as perspiration) on cotton? —"I should say that in short time itiwould perish." Would, military garments sewn with cotton be'serviceable? —"They would not." - Carments Sewn with Cotton.Witness was asked to examine the garments put in by the_ prosecution on the previous day. He did- so and stated that all were sewn with cotton. ' , Mr. Macassey: Can you produce a statement showing the amount of linen thread for the sewing of the seams of uniforms? Sprott: Yes. From.' January to August, 1916, it was £81 Is. 9d. How much since war began?—" From August, 1914, till August, 1916, £260." Have you always had ample supplies of linen thread since the war began?— "Yes." Has Levy ever given you an. order which'you have not been able to fulfil? —"I don't think so. Certainly not in 1916." Mr. Myers: Do you remember during last year being out of linen thread? Sprott: Only for a week or so, and then we were not short of tho best quality., Do you nofc know that-Levy had to get thread from Roberts, Bing, Harris, and others?—"l understand he got somo there."

Don't you know that ho got £58 10s. worth of linen thread from you in November of last year?—"l believe he did." Do you know that large indents of iinen thread made in Ireland are coming forward?—"l believe there is some." x Mr. Myers: Look at this uniform and tell me' what the. seams are sewn with. • Sprott said a eeam he had examined was sewn partly with cotton and partly with linen thread. Mr. Myers: Very well. I will put that garment in. It was made by Cathie's. Mr. Macassey objected to the defence being allowed to put in such garments. His .Worship: Two wrongs do not mako a right. Even if others have done wrong, it cannot excuse the defendant if ho also has dono wrong. Mr. Macassey: Levy is charged with a breach of his contract, and what others have done makes no difference to this case. Mr. Myers: The witness Moeller said that thoy did not use cotton thread. I am testing that witness's reliability. If he cannot be relied upon on that point, he cannot be relied upon on other points. Mr. Macassey pointed out that the slccvos were swrn with cotton, but not the main seams. This closed the ca.se for the Crown. The Defence Opened. Mr. Gray then opened the case for tho defendant.' Ho said: — "We submit that tho information must bo' dismissed. No offence is disclosed, and section 3 of the. War Regulations says:— " 'The Governor-in-Council may mako such regulations as ho thinks necessary for the prohibition of any acts which in his opinion are injurious to the public

safety, the defenoo of New Zealand, or the effective conduct of , the military or naval operations of His Majesty during the present war.' "Then section 4 says:— " 'Any person who 'commits, or • attempts to commit, or docs any act with' intent to commit, or counsels, or procures, aids, abets, or incites any other person (whether in Now Zealand or elsewhere) to commit, any offence agninst a. regulation made under . this Actshall he liable on summary conviction before a Magistrate to imprisonment for a term not exceed- . ing twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding £100.' "The regulation on which this prosecution is based is No. 12 of November, 1915. It reads: — " 'No person shall wilfully break any contract mado with the Crown in respect or for tho purposes of the present war.'

"The first point I make is that' the essentials of this charge being that the defendant lias.delivered certain goods which were not in accordance with the contract is .not a matter which was contemplated by the statute under which the regulations were made. I ask Your Worship to give your serious attention to section 3, which concerns tho public safety, the .defence of New Kealand, and the effective conduct of military or naval operations. It would-bo ridiculous to say that because an Army contractor has sewn, some of his garments with material less enduring and strong than the material specified an injury would bo d6no to the defence of Now Zealand or tho effective conduct of military or naval operations as contemplated by the statute. Section 12 says no person shall wilfully break any contract. That is a most unusual clauso to find in any such document, and I venture to say it is the first time the word has been used in tho Crown Law Office. Completely breaking a contract means refusing to perform one. We have not broken the contract. On the contrary it has bzon If it was not properly performed it might give riso to a case for damages, but the contract was not broken."

What Does the Law Mean? His Worship: Do you say the words are not. to bs read "Commit a breach"? Mr. Gray: That is 60. Certainly they are.; not. Suppose a. man substituted bono buttons for metal buttons, would you say he had broken, liis con-' tract and rendered himself liable to imprisonment for twelve months? I suggest that these regulations were framed when there was certain trouble with sailors on transports. A matter of sailors refusing to serve on transports exactly comee within the wording of Section 'i, and would be something injurious to the military operations. It is such a thing as that which is aimed at, but not s, thing of this kind where a man has failed in some minor way to strictly fulfil the whole terms of his contract;

."Your Worship heard yesterday that the authorities have terminated this contract. Tffe power wa6 derived from an Act passed last session—the War Legislation Amendment Act. It i 3 provided in the last section (41): — " '(1) Wliero any person has, either before or after the passing of this Act, entered into a contract for the supply to the Crown of any goods, wares, or nSerchandise required- in connection with the pre- ■ sent war, the Minister of Defence may, by notice in writing -under his hand, cancel such contract if: " '(a) Any such goods, wares, or merchandise that may have been delivered under the contract (whether or after.the passing of this Act) are not in accordance with the terms of the contract, and (b) the contractor, by reason of his failure to supply such goods, wares, or merchandise in accordance with the terms of the contract; and " '(c) The contractor, by reason of his failure to supply such goods, wares, or merchandise in accordance with the terms of the contract, has (whether before or after . the passing of this Act), wilfully committed a breach of such contract. ' " '(2) The person shall be entitled to recover from the Crown any moneys by way of damages or.compensation by reason of the cancellation of any contract under this section. " '(3) The cancellation, of a contract under this section shall not relieve the oontractor of any. liahility for damages in respect of any breach of that contract prior to its cancellation.' '

Mr. Cray's Contention "Not Tenablß." "The contract has, for the present, been terminated—whether rightly or wrongly does not matter just now. I invito your Worship.'s attention to' the fact that the section says that cancellation shajl not relieve the contractor of any liability to damages for a breach of contract. I draw your Worship's attention to the language. The regulation says no person shall breaks a contract. : The section says: "Shall commit a breach," not break the whole contract by. refusing to perform it. His Worship: I have no doubt the 'wording might be more happy, tut I don 4, think your view that the whole contract is to be broken before there can be a preach is tenable. Mr. Gray: This is a highly penal statute. Your Worship is asked to say that the regulations and the section read that a, contractor who commits/any breach of ;i coil track-wilfully, nc matter'"how trivial,' is nevertheless liable to criminal punishment, as well as damages. There must be a. very clear case before your Worship can convict-. I submit that we havo,not broken the contract, and that- there K no case disclosed. "My nest,point is this: There is only one oaso before the Court at present. The case before tlie Court is that a sample was taken from a bundle of garments, and it was. found that the seams were sewn, with cotton. . The rest of tie tunics were not examined. There Jis no evidence where that paiticular tunic was made. It .is true Levy is the contractor, and has to deliver the goods, but that is no evidence as to which particular factory in town made it. ■Mr.' Macassey: It has Levy's name on it. . ■

Mr! Gray: Of course. They all Lavs liis uamo stamped 011 the pockote. His Worship: Thoro is also cridenco that numbers of garments were sent t<v Levy's, and from tlisre to tlio Defence Department. Mr. 1 Gray: There arc a number of faciorios making garments far him. Before your Worship'can convict him of wilfully making a breacli, there must be evidence that ho had knowledge that the seams were sown -with cotton instead of linen thread. If it wcro shown that cotton was used instead of linen thread, but that his workmen or sub-contractore allowed it without Levy's knowledge, "that would not relieve Levy of the civil responsibility, bnt he would not bo subjcct to criminal prosecution unless it were proved that 1,0 had knowledge of it. The Crown has got to establish that the breach was wilful. On a. question of wilfulness, I submit that the authorities arc rteir that there can kr> no charge of wilfulness unless and until it is'established that the nerson charged is himself scuilty of the offence. The essence of the charge is that the breach' was wilfully committed. His Worship Takes a Hand. "On the subject of wilfulness Your Worship has heard enough of the evi-

denco to 'know- that though Levy is tho proprietor of Hib factory, he is not the manager. Of course, that cannot exouse Levy in a civil sense, and "ho is liable to damages iof breach of contract by bis servants. But when you como to deal with oriminal prosecution it is'very, vory different, and a person is not doomed to bo -guilty of criminal intent unless there is proof of it, or unless a statuto saj;s that' a mero doing of a certain thing is ah offenco. AVhen, however, a. statute says: "You shall not wilfully do a thing" it requires tho prosecution to produco proof of guilty intent'. In civil proceedings 'wilful'''may mean an act done intentionally, but criminally a thing u not dono wilfully unle'ss it is dono wilfully with evil intention. -Where is tho cvidenco of evil intention here ? Or the facts from which ovil intention can be* inferred? Here wo have a contract of goods delivered to the value of at least £75,000, and out of good& to that valuo delivered up to July there is (at. tho suggestion of tho Crown) a gain to Levy of £140. ,We don't agree with that figure, but, supposing'it, is correct, is it not ridiculous to supposo that, with a contract so large, he would imperil his reputation, risk tho cancelation of the contract, and ronder himself liable to imprisonment for the sake of this pal- ; try gain? "We submit with' conßdenco that unless it is proved to havo been done wilfully on the part of Levy the information must fail. On the subject of wilfulness Your Worship has to take into consideration tho evidence of the Crown. Mr. Frost,, examiner of clothing, gives Levy a good character as, a contractor, willing and ready always to play the game, und to meet the Department in any way. It is ridiculous to suppose that Your Worship can be asked te infor that Levy rendered himself liable tofheso proceedings. I have said thdt Levy was

. liot supervising his own factory. In $ie days prior to tlie war, and wlion I Levy was making garments for tho Territorials, tlje use of linen thread in seams was .not called for. Thread ..was stipulated,- and Mr. Morrison, an • /"export, ;who was called in this,-case by : the prosecution,- says that thread might mean any kind of thread —linen, thread, silk thread, cotton- thread. "Contractors were requested to submit samples of garments, anil goods were to have : been in accordance jjth thogo samples. 1 What was done here? '.Levy's, managsr toblc to the,. Defence ■ "Store a sample of. a tunic, and he submitted "tliis - as something . complying ■ with the specifications. Tho offioer at the Defence. Store took t?ii minutes or a quarter of an hour to' examine it; . and then passed . it. Now, the goods •Levy's factory mado thereafter are admittedly ~in accordance with that sample. And that sealed sample was sown with cotton." . : / His .Worship: Even if it was,/that 'would make no ..difference.. Two . or . three of tho.; witnesses said that that V : sample .was submitted for'cut. .They had. a right to rely on' the terms of the contract as regards, the sewing of the seams. Mr. Gray.: Granted. But if that is . made by a ; factory manager, or. .some ..understrapper,' and sown; .wfEh (jotton as lihder the old contracts, is . Levy to- be hijld personally responsible? You don't suggest tliat he sews the. gar-; rnouts himself? ' '

Fixing the " Responsibility. His Worship: Then who. would be' -responsible? : 1 .Sir. Gray: Levy, civilly. ; ' ' , His Worship: Civilly,! Not in every way? / You wonld .argue that despite express; notice that ho is to use linen thread,, he is not; guilty. if hp. allows all his" hands to. use cotton,' and,stays -awayjand chooses to winkat it. -■. . 1 fail to see how he can bo held innocent of-thg breach of.'the contract if lie • continues'to use cotton-after he was notified against its,-use —how ho can be "held-iniiocent of a continuing breach. Mr. Macassey : That is tho whola point, Your. Worship. . Mr. Gray: Now, we will como to the factor} - .. . . -. ..' Hi? Worship: . I don't think it is necessary to go to tho factory. I don't think it is necessary to go into tho question of whether cotton' or thread was used, Tho ' only question 'ia whether cotton was used wilfully.Mr. Gray: Wilfully by tho defendant ? His Worship: There is no ono elso charged. . x \

Mr. Gray mentioned Levy! s efforts to settlo tho matter. Tlio Crown might say that Lovy's attitude was influenced by fear of prosecution, but that would be unfair, for, as a fact, the letters to tho Minister were writ, ten when there was no mention of • prosecution, after a conference between, tho Board 1 and Mr. Myers (Levy's counsel). • Mr. Gray sub' mitted:— 1. Tho regulations do not apply to goods of this kind.; This mattor is not one calculated to: interfere with military operations. 2. The defendant did not. commit a brcach of his contract mere- ' ly by. committing a breach of this regulation. ■ . 3. The defendant did not wilfully commit the} offence charged against him, inasmuch as thero is : no proof' that the garment ' was . made in his factory, or that, he personally had any knowledge of this particular dolivexy. There in no evidence ho had knowledge of . any delivery whatever, or that ho personally examined any garment, and wilfully rind knowingly 6cnt it to the Department. 4.'Tho prosecution must fail, inasmuch as thero has been no wilful breach of the contract.

His Worship's Ruling sought. "I ask Your Worship to rule on thesb questions," Mr. Gray said, in concluding, "and if you rule in our favour there is lio case to answer. Let me remind Your Worship once moro that tho onus is on the Crown:" , His Worship: I think that is admitted. Mr. Maeassey: Yes. Mr. Maeassey replied to the questions submitted by Mr. Gray to the Court. Regarding Mr. Gray's first point, as to whether thero was power to mako tho regulations, .he argued that there was ample power for the Goveraor-in-Coulicil to make them. Ho put this case. Supposing just before a contingent sailed, Levy refused to fulfil a contract, he would hold up. tho draft. Supposo that instead he supplied garments which were not serviceable, and this becani9 apparent when the-men got to the front, Levy would have clearly committed an act which would affect tho military operations. "I will not stress the point. . It is too clear for argument." _ ' "As to Mr. Gray's second point, if a, contract is not performed strictly in accordance with the terms of the specifications, then a breach of tlio cpntract has been made, and the terms of'tlio contract broken. It is tlio very cssenco of this contract that the garments should be serviceable, if they aro not made serviceable tho contract has been broken."

"Then tho third point. On the question of tho word wilful, the principlo of a guilty mind applies equally to an act of omission as to an act of commission. . . . I submit that if Levy had notice that linen thread was not being used, and he did not rectify that ho is guilty of a guilty act of omission. It is his duty to perforin .his contract to supply garments in accordanco witfi the specifications." Mr. Gray: We are not charged with an act of omission, but with one of commission. So Mr. Macassev's argument does not apply to our case. No one will dispute, that any act which tfould delay tho departure of our forccs

leaving hero would bo against the good :.oonduct- of tJio war. Mr. -Maoasscy went on to speak of a possible _ caso of uniforms lioing found unsatisfactory after tlio troops reached the front; but there is not the slightest suggestion iu this prosecution, that in respoct of the goods supplied by the defendant there has been found anything interfering with tiio comfort of the troops or their military operations. Mr. Maoasscy: I did not suggest it in thrft way, but merely to 6liow that the regulation was validly made.' Mr. Gray: There is, no piggestion whatever of that having occurred. I submit the prosecution must fail.

Bcnch Dismisses Defence Law Points. His Worship: Practically what 1 am asked to do is to find that these regulations 'are not within tho scopo of the Act. . Mr. Gray: That is one point. His Worship: I don't agree with that contention. It seems to mo that Regulation 12 is perfectly reasonable. On; that ground, therefore, I must hold against the contention that the regulations are not within the scope of the Act or in accordance with tho Act. ... As regards "wilful." It means, I take it, that he was not to be held responsible for any unintentional or acidental breach of the contract. The penalties aro heavy. Itmustbe shown, Therefore, that tho man wilfully did this, or went oil doing it. What arc the facts liero? W'e have had it in evidence that a meeting of manufacturers was held, and Levy was there, and all wero expressly told that nothing bnt linen thread was to bo used in the seams. Apart, from that, It is in the specifications. There can bo no doubt that if the defendant tendered and signed tlic- specifications, ho must havo been perfectly well aware that the seams were to be sown with linon thread. Tho evidence clearly shows that many of the garments were not sewn with linen thread, but with cotton. After the contract had been running some time. Major M'Cristell wroto drawing Levy's attention to it. It has been said that that letter was not received by Levy. Against that, Lewis says-Levy produced it to him. There is quite sufficient before tho Court to show any reasonable person that defendant's attention was oalled •to tlio fact that he was not using linen thread: Now. we'are asked to say that defendant did not wilfully .do this thing— use cotton instead' of linen thread. But I must hold that there. is sufficient evidence before the Court to ishow that he did it knowingly and wilfully. •It cannot be said that that letter was sont to him on tho subject, and that lie did not know about it. The evidence of wilfulness is ample, and I must call upon tho defouce for an explanation. Mr. Myers: Your Worship means subject to an explanation. . Mri Gray : Your.Wcrehip means.that <i prima facie case has been, mado out. . His Worship.:. Yes. You asked mo to rule, and I have dono so. . Mr. Gray: Wo will proceed to call evidence.' I merely have to say that we will satisfy, your Worship that it was not a personal breach. Indicating. tlio' nature of the evidence he would call,V Mr. Gray said that it would be shown that lievy's manager (Mr.'Harry Levy) had worked on tho old lines with' his new contract. Lovy did not see the letter of April 28, and the letter he produced to Lewis was ono of February 28 from the Minister.

Abraham Levy on his Oath. Abraham Levy, the defendant, was then called to give ovidenco. Levy said that in March, 1914, hb went Home for a trip, and while he was away Harry and Ben Levy managed , the ' business. They managed Jt well, and when ho returned ho left it to them to continue the management.. Mr. Myers: You know in- December -last that tl;e contract for 1916 required linen thread P Levy: Yes, I did. You tendered?—" Yes." As far as the aotuai tender was concerned, did it mako any diifercnco whethor cotton .or linen thread was to be used—"Nono whatever. I didn't have it on my mind." A contract was let'to you ? —"Yes." . As • far as tho work in tlho factory was concerned, did you cuperviso? —"I uever attended l to the factory."

Who attended to tlio factory in connection iv i til this contract? —"Mr. Harry Levy and Mr. Ben Levy." Mr. Myers: You never interfered witfr tlio management ?• Levy (dramatically): Never. Tlio only time I interfered was when this explosion occurred. What did you do when the specifications came out P—"Passed them on to Mr. Harry Lovy." It has been said that when any matter referring to this contract aroso you often saw tho experts?—" Absolutely." . Before seeing them, from whom would you get any- information it was necessary to give them? —"Mr. Harry Levy, and Mr. Ben Levy. , Always I asked them what I should say and do." Wo have seen a letter hero of April 28? —"Yes." Have you had the records of your office searched for any trace of such letter? —"I have." ■ Have you found any?—" No." "Who openß the letters ?—"Mr. Harry and Mr. Ben." Are you down of a morning when the letters arrive?—" No." The Mystery of M'Cristeil's Letter. Did they over bring such a- letter under your notice? —"No." Was there any reason why you should not have used linen thread?— "Not the slightest." Messrs. Frost and; Lewis say you went to them with that letter of April 28?—" They are mistaken." Did you ever go to thorn witii a lettor of similar import?—" Yes, I did." Whose letter?—"Tho Minister's, of February." Do you remember receiving from tho Munitions Board Major M'Cristeil's letter of May 2?—" Yes."

Was Mr. Harry Levy then in Wellington?—"l don't think lie was." Did you go and see Lewis ajid Frost with reference to that letter? —"Yes." Anybody go with you?—" Yea, my son 13en." . AVliat happened on that occasion? — "I gave the letters to Mr. Lewis, and said 1 would make some alterations in the shape of tho pantaloons, and would not charge- them." Did that cost you anything?—" Over £100." About a month later you got a telephono message from the Defenco Stores saying you wero wanted up there. — "Yes. '. They showed inc some trousers with tho buttons, coming otf. Tho reason was that a machine 1 liavo was not working properly. I said: 'Send then) back, and I will fix them up.' " Witness added that wheri a question of tho thread arose ho told Lewis ho could have either Knox's thread used or l a thread which Lewis thought rather too much approached a saddler's thread, but was stronger than Knox's. When Lewis visited his factory he gave Lewis a reel of Knox's thread. Did vou personally havo anything to do with the making up of the samples?—"No, absolutely. Didn't know it was mado up, didn't know it was sent in, didn't know it was accopted, didn't know anything at all about it." Mr. Harry Levy sent it in —"Absolutely."

"Not Cot Money on My Mind." Did you up to tho time you heard Messrs. Kirkcaldio and Morrison had visited the factory- know that cotton was being used instead of linen thread? —"No, absolutely." Supposing you had gone into your

factory, and had seen linen thread and cotton on the machines at the 0110 time, would it .have necessarily occurred to you that cotton vas being used instead of linen thread?—" No. Because it- is essential for .every machinist to liavo both on the- machine." Mr. Gray: Cotton is used lor stitching the pockets, etc. 'Mri Myers: Then you would not, liavo suspected something wrong? Levy: I would not have taken the slightest notico. Mr. Myers: This present proceeding lias upset you very greatly ?

Levy: Yes. Mr. Myers: You think more of tl.o charge than the money? Itis not.the money you arc chiefly worrying about? Lovy: No. It is tlio oharge. 1 haven't got money on my mind. You liavo not made all tho garments under this contract at your own factory?—" No." ' Some have been made at other factories? "Eight or nine factories." All in Wellington ?—"Some aro in Wellington and somo in Christchurch." All tlio garments are sent to your factory as a sort cf central depot?— "Yes." , . You have nothing to do with tlio sortiiig of these garments?—"No. 1 Mr. Mucassoy:. Do I understand you to say that tho first intimation you got of anything wrong was when Lewis came to see you on July 12? Lovy: No. The first intimation was when Mr. Harry Lovy carae to mo after Mr. Kirkcaldie's visit; oil July 11. Is this your business wholly and solely P— "Absolutely." , Do you ask this Court to believe that you do not take any closer ■ interest in this business than tho signing of cheques? Do you not take a close interest in the financial side of the business? —"Yes, I do."

"Suoh a Little. Matter." Did you take an interest, in estipiates for this contract? —"Yes, I tliink I took some." . Did you, or did you not?—" Yes." Did you know linen thread was stipulated at the nicotine?—" Yes. I was at that meeting." . ' • Did you estimate how much linen thread would be required ?—"Perhaps I did, but it doesn't matter. It is such u small matter." \ Mr.. Macassoy: Oh no, it is not. It makes all tlio difference in your get-' ting the contracts —£140 here 9r there makes a difference when tendering. . Levy: Oh, but it's such a- small thing: Look at the amount of the contract I .got—£7s,ooo. - Do you justify tho use of cotton in the-seams of these garments?—" No." i Do you not think it was a very improper thing'to, have done? —"Certainly." When you heard of it-you were very annoyed ?—"Cortainly." Did you tell your son..and Harry Levy what you' thought about . it — "Certainly. Absolutely." Did you tell the Minister what you thought about it?-—"I suppose so. I had a personal interview with him." Here is a-letter Written to the Minister. after.-you. knew cotton had been used. -Can you show mo one syllable there showing that you were annoyed at finding.it o.pt?—"l am not an educated man. I am'a self-taught man. That is wjiy." . Mr. Macassey proceeded to read tho letter, which lie -said sought to justify the use of the cotton. He .asked for an explanation. Levy: Only what they (the managers) told me. . Mr. Macassey: Levy, do you put cotton into the ordinary suits you. make,, or do'you uso linen thread? Levy: Both. I uso both. Mr. Macassey: Levy, do you swear you use cotton in tho suits you make? Levy: It depends on the class of suit. If it is a first-class suit, I use thread. If it is a second-class suit, I use cotton.- - ,

The Explosion and Flowery Language. Mr. Maeassey: Do you mako omcer»' uniforms 'i l Levy: Yes. Mr. Maeassey: Do you,put Buffalo khaki cotton into tbem? Levy: Mo; silk anil thread. Mr. i)ia'cassey: Then why do you put cotton into tho men's garments? Levy: That cotton is strong; stronger than silk. - Mr. Macassoy: Regarding tho letter of April - 28, you still swear on your oath you never got it and never saw it. Levy: Yes. Mr. Maeassey: Frost arid Lewis are perfectly certain that you produced the letter to them. Lovy: A mistake. Mr. Maeassey:. It is something more than a mistake. I go so far as to say that either thoy or' you are stating what is not true. • Levy: It is them.

Mr. Gray: Mr. Maeassey will not admit the possibility of a mistake. ill'. Maeassey: Did you not tell them •you we're using .-Knox's linen thread, but of a second quality, the Victory brand?' ' - Levy: I'don't think I mentioned anything of the sort. _ • Mr. Maeassey: Will you deny it? Levy: I don't think I said' anything of the sort. I don't remember. Mr, Maeassey: You don't remember anything. Will you deny it? Levy: I will. Mr. Macassoy: In regard to the subcontractors, go round to them about it? • Levy: Well, tho-explosion occurred then. ■ . Mr. Maeassey: I am not ' talking about explosions. Did you go round to the sub-eontraciors ?

Mr. Maeassey: Thero is an admission by your son that garments other than- greatcoats woro sewn with cotton. Was any of that done in your factory ? Levy: No. Mr. Maeassey: Was it all done by tlio sub-contractors ? ■ Levy: I can't say.. Mr. Maeassey: You can't say, then, that none was made in your factory? Levy: No. , Mr. Maeassey: Should Harry and Ben Levy have seen that linen thread was used? Levy: Certainly. Mr. Macassoy: You. don't seek to justify their action? Levy: Certainly not. Mr. Maeassey: And you, of course, are innocent' of the whole thing? Levy: Certainly. Absolutely. Mr. Maeassey: But you didn't express your annoyance. Levy: No. Perhaps if I. was a bit better tip I could have—if I could havo put it up in flowery languago. Mr. Macassoy: But a man does notneed flowery languago to' express his annoyance. Tho case stands adjourned till this morning.