LETTER TO CENSOR OPENED

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 292, 29 August 1918, Page 7

LETTER TO CENSOR OPENED

APPARENT CONFUSION OF NAMES

A CHARGE DISMISSED

What appeared to bo a confusion of names formed the basis of a case heard bp; Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Walter Fear, manager of Harringtons, Ltd., was charged that ou July 7, ho opened a postal packet addressed to tlie "Censor, Wellington, New Zealand."

Mr. T. Neavo appeared for the deifendant.

Chief-Detective Boddam, who prosecuted, said tho information was laid under Section 91. of tho Post and Telegraph Act, 11)03. Mr. Harrington was the depty chief cable censor, and the defondant was manager of Harringtons, Ltd., whoso privato box was No. 735, G.P.0., Wellington. On July 7 last Mr. Tanner, .chief postal censor, Wellington, received a letter' from tho War Office addressed to tho "Censor, .Wellington." L'-'do that envelope was another soaled envelopo, marked "Confidential." Mr. Tanuer thought that tho letter was for Mr. Harrington, and ho wrote across it, "H. W. Harrington, Esq.," and placed it on a tray to be taken to Mr. Harrington. On July 9 Mr. Harrington received tho envelopo containing the. enclosure, and found that both had been oponed. On the outer onvelopo were marked the words, : "Not tor Box 738, opened by Harringtons (N.Z.), Ltd." Defendant subsequently admitted opening the envelopes, but expressed regret for having done 60.

Walter Alfred Tanner, 'deputy chief postal censor at Wellington, stated that on July 7 he received a large envelope addressed to "The Censor, Wellington." It bore the stamp of the War Office. Thinking that it was for Mr. Harrington, tho oablo censor, the witness left it marked for delivery to Miv Harringr ton. A week or so later defendant called on witness in reference to the letter, aiul said he had been careless! Witness referred hinr to Mr. Harrington, as ho did not wish to discuss the matter with Fear.'

Information Refussd. To Mr. Neave: Many thousands of letters were marked with the censor's stamps. ( Can you give auy indication of ivliat kind of letters are opened by the censor?—"No, I cannot give you that information." You mean that as a matter of policy you cannot say?^-"No." Letters that manifestly have enclosures would no doubt be opened by tho censor and examined if necessary?—"l cannot say." His Worship: It is more or less obvious, but. wo can assume what- we would do if we were in the same position. Mr. Neave: So we may assume that quite a -large number of business men are quite"accumtomed to seeing the censor's stamp on their letters ? —What you want', to. get at is .whether Mr. Fear has ever received a letter marked like ,that before?—" Yes." I don't think Mr. Fear has over received ,81101 a letter before.. Edna Saunders, mail-room sorter, Wellington, did not. actually remember putting tho envelope in Harringtons, Ltd.'s, private box, but somebody else might have done so. She herself had been in doubt as to what to do with it.

To Mr. Neave: She thought the en.volopo was for Harringtons, Ltd. She only had the letter once. If-the letter liad been put into Harringtons' box a second time Bomobody else must havo been mistaken, as to tho address. She iiad not seen many letters with the censor's mark upon them, except those addressed to Somes Island.

' Henry William Harrington, deputy chief cable censor, stalled that on July 9 last lie received an envelope endorsed "Not for Box 738," and marked "Opened by Harringtons, Ltd." The envelope bore the War Office stamp, and was marked "Confidential." The envelope inside, which was also marked "Confidential," and contained ii communication from the Office, had also been opened. To' Mr. Neave: Defendant had called on witness in_ reference to tho matter, and explained that the envelopes had been opened by inadvertence. Witness replied that a, topu who opened correspondence marked in suoli a manner was either a fool or else did it deliberately. It was a common thing for the War Office to put correspondence in two envelopes, and witness had never heard of both envelopes having been opened inadvertently before.

Alfred P. Dryden, Chief Postmaster, Wellington, gave evidence to tho effect

that in rosponso to a lcttei' ho addressed to Harringtons, Ltd., ho received a roply from defondant, who stated that ho had been carcloss to some extent, and oxpressed regret for what hud happened. Ho had been confused bv tho writing of tlio words "H. W. Harrington, Esq.," over tho printing on tha outer envelope, and went to the sido door at tho Post Office to point out tho matter to an official. Ho could not got an answer to his ring on the inquiry hell, however, and failed to attract tho attention of somebody who was passing by. Ho then oponed tho outer envelope. -As his firm was constantly in the habit of receiving letters with other envelopes in thorn, hn oponed tho enclosure in the envelope under notice.

Mr. Ncave: Had this letter been opened by a private person out of improper curiosity, or out of some ulterior niotivo, tho ]>ersou .to opening the letter would' not. have stated on tho fnco of the envelopo by whom .it hud been opened. Does not that convey to your mind at least proof of innocent intention under which this letter was opened?—"ls that,not more or less a matter of opinion? It was an as-" tounding act of carelessness, an incomprehensible act of carelcssnoss." k When tho case for the prosecution had concluded, Mr. Neavo .said ho would lilio to go on with the case thero and then.

His Worship said thero was no provision for a reduction of the charge, and the caso being indictable, ho thought that it should ho passed on to a higher Cou"t to deal with. Defendant could malic an explanation, but not on oath. Defendant's Explanation. Defendant said he had been with Harringtons, Ltd., for about twelve years. On the forenoon of July 7 ho cleared the firm's private box. Ho did not look at the envelope in question very carefully, and was more impressed by the fact' that "Harrington" had been addressed on it in red ink than by anything elso. Ho went round to the side door of the Post Office to open the letter in the presence of an official, but could get 110 answer when ho rang tho bell. Ho then opened tho envelope, but had to admit that he did not take particular care at the time. When ho saw tho inner envelops he was positive that the correspondence belonged to Harringtons, Ltd., because ho believed films were enclosed. When he opeiled the inner envelope lie could seo that it was not for Harringtons, Ltd., and was not interested, not even to the extent of taking tho letter out. He had do knowledge of what it contained. He returned to his office, the letter sealed' and endorsed, and had it returned to the Post Office within tivo hours. He thought no more about tho matter until the next morning, when he received the - letter from the Chief Postmaster informing him that he had committed a serious offence. On a second occasion the letter was placed in the private box of Harringtons, Ltd., but was immediately returned to the 'Post Office, Had he seen the "Censor" on the outer envelope he would have returned the letter to the Post Office without any hesitation.

Mr. Neave submitted that the caso should be dismissed, as, after what defendant had said, there could be no chance of a jury convicting him. Defendant had committed a mistake which any business mau could make. It was a purious thing that two officials in the Post Ojficc had made the same mistake as defendant regarding tho address.

His Worship said the defendant's story was reasonable in many, ways, but lie could not understand why defendant should have had a doubt as to the word "Harrington" being written over the printed word "Censor." The explanation regarding the inner envelope was very probably correct, but it appeared to His Worship that defendant had.had a doubt : and decided to risk it. The Postal officials worked at high pressure, and it'was easy for them to liavo mado a mistake and put tho letter in Harringtons' private box. Defendant had a better opportunity of studying the address on tho envelope. At the same time it was probable -that a jury would not convict. In. the light of all the circumstances, it would be probably wnstlne the country's money to send, the 'defendant up for trial, and ho would dismiss the information.