NAVAL SECRETS DIVULGED

Levin Daily Chronicle, 15 October 1918, Page 4

NAVAL SECRETS DIVULGED

ADMIRALTY OFFICIAL FINED. The way in which Government secrets often leak out waß disclosed at Bow Street, London) at the end of June, when an Admiralty official who had talked loudly in the train of secret naval matters was fined £20 and ordered to pay 10 guineas costs. He is Marsden Maitland, a middle-aged man of Greenland Road, Walthamstow, and he was summoned for having published and communicated certain information as to the movements of ships of H.M. Allies and proposed plans of naval operations, also information as to th,§ passage of ships along parts of the coast. Mr Cecil Jones told how he overheard the conversation in the train and said he heaid Maitland advise his friend to watch the newspapers and test the prophecy he had made of the naval operations. The whole conversation was principally occupied with naval subjects. The conversation was in so loud a voice that he could not read his newspaper and was obliged to hear what was said.

Bichard Evans, of- the Department of the Controller-General of Merchant Shipping, said Maitland had been employed since April 30 this year, and his salary was £300 a year. Giving evidence, Maitland said he had no recollection of any conversation about H.M. ships in any shape or form. Mr Whitely: Then Mr Jones' evidence is false?— Most of it.

Sir John Dickinson, in his decision said that the evidence of Mr Jones was accepted by him entirely. "Your offence," he continued, "is the common one of vanity, a desire to pose before your fellows as one who is vulgarily termed as 'in the know.' Of course, that is a different thing from using such things with a sinister intention. "Yours is a grave offence, and both as a warning to you and as a deterrent to others I am going to convict you. I should like people to understand that if in public places they have any information they must keep their mouths clos. ed. I shall fine you £50 and ten guineas costs.''

On Maitland's circumstances being explained, the fine was reduced to one of £20.