TWO MEN CHARGED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 290, 14 September 1940, Page 3

TWO MEN CHARGED

THE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS. MONEY ALLEGEDLY SENT OVERSEAS. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, September 13. Breaches of the Finance Emergency Regulations were alleged against Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, a solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, a manufacturers’ representative, who wore jointly charged in the Magistrate’s Court to-day 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 payment in New Zealand as a consideration for receiving payment outside New Zealand, and with dealing with money payable outside Now Zealand as consideration for receiving payment in New Zealand. Suckling was charged alone with sending money out of New Zealand without the permission of the Minister for Finance. 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 man named S. J. Haydon, who went to live in California, because of his wife's health, was given permission hv the Reserve Bank to transmit to San Francisco £IOOO in February and six amounts of £IOO each in April, June, August, October, November and December. Sutherland was attorney for Haydon, and on April 30 he was informed by the Union Bank that that was the last day on which the April permit was available. Having no funds available in Haydon’s account, Sutherland arranged an allegedly illegal transaction with Suckling whereby Suckling paid £lO3 foi the £IOO, which was equivalent to £BO sterling. Sutherland hanked ’£loß to I-laydon’s credit and endorsed a draft with the signature of Haydon. It was dispatched by Suckling to liis principals in Yorkshire, Suckling asking that £BO sterling be placed to liis credit in England. In giving evidence, Sutherland said i Haydon mentioned before leaving New Zealand that he had a friend in Suckling’s office, and that he would be pleased to have a contact with Suckling, as the latter’s principals overseas might be useful to him in his endeavours to begin business in America on his own account. Sutherland said ho banked the £IOB given him by Suckling to Haydon’s credit in a tiust account, endorsed the draft, and gave it to Suckling. He did not know the terms of the arrangement between Haydon and Suckling’s office about the money. His principal concern on April 30, when all the transactions except the handing over of the draft took place, was that he might miss collecting the April permit on his client s behalf.

Arrangement Assumed. 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 some arrangement had been made between Haydon and Suckling and Firth’s (Suckling’s Yorkshire principals), whereby Firth’s might be taking money on Haydon’s behalf, acting perhaps as his bankers. He thought the draft was going to England to Haydon for his benefit. Suckling, in evidence, said be was aware that outgoing letters were dealt with by the censor. The dralt was sent, out in the mail in the ordinary straightforward way, and he was greatly surprised when informed that it had been held up. To Mr Biss, Suckling said lie realised that the regulations ot April 10 would stop his buying of sterling. He mentioned the regulations to Sutherland, whose reply was that l|e was getting the draft from a trading hank, and it obviously must have the authority of the Reserve Bank. Suckling said lie did not then know 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 bo completed. Serious View. '■ ' After the evidence and legal argument had been submitted, the Magistrate said lie considered cases oi: 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 bad brought it to make the regulations more public. The police were not pressing for a heavy penalty, but wanted it to be brought before the public and understood that breaches of these regulations were regarded seriously.