VIA ROTTERDAM.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15173, 11 January 1915, Page 10

VIA ROTTERDAM.

GOODS ALLEGED TO BE SENT

TO GERMANY

CHARGES AGAINST. A GERMAN

SOME INTERESTING COR RESPONDENT"E.

Tho hearing of five charge- againstHen rich Wilhehn Magnus' Duerkop. a German (who was released from Somes Island to stand his trial), of having traded with an alien enemy, was commenced at the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Friday afternoon, before Mr D. G. A. Cooper. S.M.

Four of the informations were laid under section 35 of tho Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, and the remaining charge under the.Trading with the Enemy Act, 191-1. The first charge was worded as follows: —"On or about 17th September, It'll, at Auckland, at a time when his Majesty was at war with a foreign State, to wit, the Empire of Germany, did attempt-to supply Gustav J. J. Witt, a poison carrying on business in such foreign .State, to wit, Hamburg, with certain goods, to wit, seventeen casks of casings."' The remaining indictments related to olhor articles ot" a similar nature, the dates of the alleged offences being given as Gth October. ".Sth October (two), and 3rd November. Mr H. H. Ostler (oi tbe (.Town Law Office) appeared for tho Crown and Mr Neavo for accused. ,-.,,_ Mr Ostler, in opening, explained that Duerkop was a native of Hamburg, and was about thirty-five years of age. The correspondence to lie put forward would show that he had had a sound commercial training. In 1912 ho left tho employ of Langgnth and Co., of Auckland, to enter iiito partnership, with Mr M-Kay, of-that city. The firm did a large "business in the export of sausage' casings and articles of a similar nature. There'was no suggestion that he had acted traitorously to. the Crown, as a spy. or had in any way been disloyal to the interests of the Empire.

Mr Neave -said that Mr Duerkop desired that tho correspondence should be read, for he relied upon it to refute tho charges against him. He wished to make this re-ervation, however—that some of i. was irrelevant. Mr Neave then raised the point as to whether four of the informations should not bo dismissed, as all indictable offences had to bo brought under section* 5 of the Crimes Act, and proceedings could not be taken under common law. .

His Worship said he would reserve the point for tho Supreme Court to deal with. - •

For the prosecution (according to the "Evening Post's" reoort). it was contended that Gustav J. J. Witt, of Rotterdam (to which port certain goods were alleged to have been consigned by accused), was the samp firm as Gustav J. J.Witt, of Hanrburg. The. accused carried on business in Auckland in partnership with ono McKay, under the title of Duerkop and McKay. , Tho nature of the offences was disclosed in voluminous correspondence which passed between Duerkop and Witt, and which was read by Mr Ostler. Incidentally letters' from Duerkop to other firms were also read; the allegation being that they disclosed Duerkop's knowledge that he was trading with the enemy. The preliminary lettors dealt with the negotiaitons between tho two parties, as the result of which, Durkop. before the war, made shipments of goods consigned to Witt. On September Sth, 'after war had broken out, Duerkop wrote to Witt and Co. asking them whether they '■ could take a "consignment of canned mussels, and on September 10th communicated with the Steam Packet Navigation Company at Sydney stating they intended to make certain shipments of other goods to Rotterdam and asking for freight quotations. They also wrote to their agents at Colombo giving instructions to them to ship to Rotterdam seventeen casks of casings landed from the German steamer Furth, which had been captured. On October 6th a letter, was sent to Witt and Co., asking if there wa. any chance of'doing business in Rotterdam in rabbit skins, which, it was stated, were accumulating* at this end. On October 26th another letter was sent to a merchant in Hamburg, which, Mr Ostler contended, showed that Duerkop knew the goods were eventually to get to a German destination. The letter stated that the writer (Duerkop) understood that Holland received large -quantities oi casings, but as his firm did not wish to involve it-self in illegal methods it had refiriine-i from sending casings on behalf of the firm specified to Rotterdam. 'To a no* her German firm which h-id a branch in Rotterdam, however,'' continued Mr Ostler, "he endeavoured in four cases to send goods, and actually did in tho fifth case."

"CONTINENTAL REQUIREMENTS."

Continuing. Mr Ostler read a further letter dated October 6th, Written to Hamilton. Hawley and Co., of London, in which Duerkop expressed the opinion that good -business should be possible from London to Holland, which country he (Duerkop) understood largely supplied Continental requirements. "This," said Mr Ostler, "was an indication that he knew by sending goods to Holland that they were getting through to Germany." The letter then went on to state that Duerkop believ- ! Ed Rotterdam was a suitable market for ox and sheep casings, and ho would be pleased if Hamilton and Hawley would make enquiries. A later letter. J written on October ■ 14th* showed that [Duerkop had already sent a'shipment I via Uatavia direct to Rotterdam. This shipment consisted of six cases of casings (in place of some aboard the German steamer Seidlitz. which took shelter at Valparaiso) aud 28 now cases which were transhipped at Sydney into the Tasman and then again transhipped at Uatavia in time to arrive at Rotterdam on December I.9th. Mr Ostler next read a cablegram sent by Duerkop on October 24th asking Witt and Co. (Rotterdam) whether they were- prepared to accept the shipment. To this a reply "Yes" wsts received on October 27th. Other communications were then road relating to the various charges against the accused. Mil McKAY PROTESTS. Mr Ostler then went on to stato that Duerkop had forwarded letter. to America to be sent on to Germany through a neutral State. They were strictly, business letters, however, and contained nothing traitorous or false. He (Mr Ostler) wished to make it perfectly clear that the whole of the correspondence from August 24th up to the end of October was conducted between accused and Witt, as Mr McKay, Diie.-kop's partner, was away in Nelson. He read further correspondence which had passed between the two partners. In ono letter Duerkop informed McKay that thirty casks of casings had been shipped from Batavia to Rotterdam. Duerkop all the time (Mr Ostler -stated) knew that Witt and.Co. had a German directorate, and that the firm was ran with German capital. Mr McKay wan at the time ignorant of this fact, however, and when he found out he wrote, in reply to letters by Duerkop, strongly protesting against shipments being made to Rotterdam, saying, inter alia: '•The idea that we may still be -hipping to Germany is unbearable." Duerkop replied that the goods might he for Belgium. France, or England. "But if for England.'' commented Mr OstleV, "why not ship them straight to London and save all the expense of transhipment?" Late in November McKay wrote to Duerkop, saying: "If you are .hipping further you are doing

so against mv wishes." To this Duerkop replied that tho Dutch wero undertaking to feed Belgian refugees, and it was probable that most of the goods were going to Belgium. Mr Neave: There aro two million Belgians in Holland. Mr Ostler asked his Worship to note that- one letter dated August 27th was written by Gustav J.J. Witt from Hamburg,' and was posted in Rotterdam on August 31st, with the name, of Gustav J. J. Witt, Rotterdam, on the envelope. Mr Neave said his client was desirous of going into the witness-box to explain tho whole of the circumstances connected with tho charges. . The case was adjourned until toda_*.