BREACH ALLEGED

Taranaki Daily News, 14 September 1940, Page 8

BREACH ALLEGED

By Telegraph—Press Association.

FINANCE REGULATIONS WELLINGTON COURT CASE

Wellington, Last Night. Because he considered that cases of this nature were of considerable importance to the commercial community and the public generally the magistrate reserved his decision in a case alleging breaches of the Finance Emergency Regulations heard in the Wellington court to-day. The men against whom the breaches were alleged were Ian Malcolm Sutherland, solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, manufacturers' representative. It is understood that the case was the first of its kind in New Zealand. Details of Charges. They were charged with being parties to a transaction involving the conversion of New Zealand currency into sterling currency at a rate of exchange other than the current rate, with making a payment in New Zealand as consideration for receiving a payment outside of New Zealand and with dealing with money payable outside New Zealand as consideration for receiving a payment in New Zealand. Suckling was charged alone with sending money out of New Zealand without the permission of the Finance Minister. Both pleaded not guilty. Part of their defence was that the informations did not disclose any statutory offence. The charges were heard together. It was stated for the Crown that the facts were that a Mr. S. J. Haydon, who went to live in California because of his wife's health, was given permission by the Reserve Bank to transmit to San Francisco £1000 in February and six amounts of £100 each in April, June, August October, November and December. Sutherland was attorney in New Zealand for Haydon and on April 30 was informed by the Union Bank that it was the last day on which the April permit ivas available. Having no funds available in Haydon's account he arranged a transaction with Suckling whereby Suckling oaid £108 for the £100, which was equivaent to £80 sterling. Sutherland banked 1108 to Haydon's credit and endorsed the Iraft with the signature of Haydon. It vas dispatched by Suckling to his prinfipals in Yorkshire, Suckling asking that 180 sterling be placed to his credit in Sngland. Account of Transactions.

In giving evidence Sutherland said that Haydon had mentioned before leaving New Zealand that he had a friend in Suckling's office and he was pleased to have a connection with Suckling as the latter's principals overseas might be useful to him in his endeavours to begin a business in America on his own account. Sutherland said he banked £108 given him by Suckling to Haydon's credit in a trust account, endorsed the draft and gave it to Suckling. He did rfot know the terms of the arrangement, between Haydon and Suckling's office about the money. His principal concern on April 30, when all transactions except the handing over of the draft took place, was that- he might miss collecting the April permit on his client's behalf. Answering Mr. H. R. Biss, who conducted the case for the Crown, Sutherland said that on April 30 he did not hold enough money of Haydon's to pay for the April permit. In participating in this transaction he assumed that some arrangement had been made between Haydon. Suckling and Firth's, Suckling's Yorkshire principal, whereby Firth's might be taking the money on Haydon's behalf and acting perhaps as his bankers. He thought that the draft was going to England for Haydon for his benefit. Suckling's Evidence.

Suckling in evidence said that he wai aware that outgoing letters were deali with by the censor. A draft was sent ou1 in the mail in. the ordinary straightforward way and he was greatly surprised when he was informed that it had been held up. To Mr. Biss Suckling said he realised that the regulations of April 10 would stop his buying of sterling. He mentioned the regulations to Sutherland, whose reply was that he was getting a draft from a trading bank and it obviously must have the authority of the Reserve Bank. Suckling said he did not then know that Haydon's permit had been issued months previously. To Mr. Pope. who appeared for Suckling himself, Suckling said he understood that any arrangements made before the April regulations could legally be completed. After evidence and legal argument had been submitted the magistrate said that he considered cases of this nature of considerable importance and interest to the commercial community and the public generally. He therefore proposed to reserve his decision. Mr. Biss said near the end of the hearing that the police understood this to be the first prosecution of its kind in New Zealand and had brought the case for the purpose of making the regulations more public. The police were not pressing for a heavy penalty but wanted it brought before the public so that it should be understood that breaches of these regulations were regarded seriously.