THE LEVY CASE

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2868, 5 September 1916, Page 6

THE LEVY CASE

FINE OF £50

SEVEN OTHER CHARGES FOLLOW

APPEAL MENTIONED

Yesterday afternoon-, Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., gave judgment on tho caso in which Abraham Levy is charged, with having broken his State contract for the supply of military uniforms by sewing the seams of garments with cotton instead of with linei; thread. His Worship did not agree with Levy's plea of ignorance j he convicted him, a'ld fined him £50.

The judgment ran: "In this case defendant is charged with having on Juno 23 wilfully broken his contract with tho Crown of January 10, 1916, for the supply of military uniforms, by delivering to the Crown certain goods not in accordance with the terms of the,contract, contrary to Regulation 12 of the "War Regulations, dated November 18, 1915, made under the War Regulations Act of 1914, and contrary to (statute. The regulation jjs as follows: " 'No person shall wilfully break any contract made with the Crown in respect of or for tho purposes of tho present war.' "Tho point had boon raised that the regulation was ultra vires and void. Ho had ruled against this. The amending Act liad validated tho regulations. The defenco raised was practically ono of ignorance. The defendant said he did not know of the regulation. ' Both his managers stated that they did not know of the conditions of- the specification. Against that there were the facts that the specification was produced to tho tend-' orors, and that scotion 4 of the specification expressly provided that on all garments linen thread should be used. Defendant Bigacd the contract with tho specification attached, and N he undertook to carry out tho conditions of the contract. After the contract had been running for a time, a letter was written to defendant by Major M'Cristell, and independent witnesses deposed that tho letter reached him, inasmuch as ho produced it to the witnesses Lewis and Frost. Both witnesses testified in no uncertain terms that the letter was produced to them. Lewis was recalled, by His Worship in consequenco of the statement by defendant, and gave evidence to the effect that he was positive that this letter was produced by defendant himself, who asked what ho was to do about it. Frost, also, swore to tho same effect. Theso facts had to be_ taken into consideration in whether the contraot had been wilfully broken or not.

• "I find on the evidence," continued His Worship, "that there was a wilful breach of contract, and tho only question is that of penalty. It seems impossible to me to say that a porson could remain in Ignorance after inspecting the conditions of tender and signing a contract, ard having his attention drawn, to tho specification in the _ letter addressed to defendant in April as follows: —'I wish to draw your attention to tho fact that your contract requires you to use Knox's linen thread. I desire you to give this matter your immediate attention.' It is impossible to say that tho pica of ignorance can bo supported. The maximum penalty for the offence is £100, but I take into consideration the fact that it was given in evidence that defendant's contract had been terminated, and a large quantity of garments thrown on his hands. I am entitled ,to take that into consideration in fix-, ing the penalty. The penalty I fix is £50."

Mr. P. S. K. Macassey. who prosecuted for the Crown, said that thero were seven other similar charges against Levy, and that ho proposed to go on with them. However, Mr. Myers (one of Levy's counsel) was away, and the cases might be ndjouniod for a week.

Mr. Gray, K.C., counsel for Levy, said it savoured of persecution to talk of pursuing tlie other seven charges. Mr. Macassey said he would havo something to say, about that later— not just then.

The remaining cases were adjourned till Monday next.

Mr. Gray said that His Worship's decision would he appealed against.