VIA ROTTERDAM ALLEGED TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 32, 8 February 1915, Page 8

VIA ROTTERDAM ALLEGED TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

DUERKOP BEFORE SUPREME COURT. Trading with the enemy was the offence alleged against Wilhelm Heinrich Magnus Duerkop, a member of the firm of Duerkop and Mackay, Auckland, who came before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) for trial at the Supreme Court to-day. Accused, who is a German, was formerly interned on Somes Island. He was indicted at the Magistrate's Court and was committed for trial at the Supreme Court. ' Mr. H. H. Ostler (of the Crown Law Office) conducted the prosecution, and j Mr. T. Neave appeared on behalf of the j accused. The charges were as follow : — (1) Being a partner in a firm of merchants carrying on business at. Auckland, . . . under the name of Duerkop and Mackay, on or about 17th September, at Auckland, at a time while His Majesty was at war with a foreign State, to wit the Empire of Germany, did attempt to .supply Gustav J. J. Witt, a person carrying on business in the territory of such foreign State, to wit, at Hamburg, certain goods, to wit, 17 casks of casings ; (2) a similar charge laid in respect to 6th October, the charge reading, "Did supply thirty-three casks and one case of casings;" (3) in respect to 28th October, of "attempting to supply nineteen bales of sheepskins, twelve sacks of cowtails, and fourteen sacks of glue pieces" ; (4) on the same date, ten casks of casings ; (5) of attempting to trade with the enemy by supplying Gustav J. J. Witt and Co.'s Handelmaatschappis, a German firm trading at Rotterdam, for transmission to an enemy country, to wit, Germany, nine casks and one case of casings." The following were empanelled as a special jury:— Arthur Young (foreman), Arthur Dixon, James Whitson Jack, Harold Brown, Edward Russell, Malcolm Dimock, Robert William Hannah, Albert Burridge, Herbert Douglas Vickery, Frank Meadowcroft, Claude Percy Jones, Albert Llewellyn Haslem, Walter Smallbone. Before the prisoner was asked to plead, Mr. Neave raised an objection as to the legality of the manner in which the indictments were laid. Four of them, he said, were laid under section 35 of the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, 10th August, 1914. That section remained in force from 10th Augnsfc until 2nd November, when the Trading with the Enemy Act was passed. This latter Act repealed section 35 of the previous Act, and therefore four of the alleged offences — between 17th September and 28th October — were committed prior to the passing of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The position arose that the prisoner was indicted in four instances under an Act which had been repealed. j His Honour noted the objection, after remarking that the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act would seem to apply. The charges were then read to accused, who pleaded nob guilty to all of them. Mr. Ostler intimated that he and Mr. Neave had agreed that the indictments be all heard together. "FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL." The case for the Crown was then outlined by Mr. Ostler. Counsel stated that from time immemorial — at any rate for centuries — it had been the law of England that, when His Majesty was at war with a foreign State, no person in British territory should trade with the enemy. The reason was that trading with the enemy meant supplying him with the sinews of war. Immediately on the outbreak of war a proclamation was issued by the Imperial Government prohibiting trading with the enemy, and, owing to the variance in the criminal codes of the Old Country and New Zealand, the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act was passed five days after hostilities commenced, so as to make it a statutory offence to trade with the enemy. Four of the acts were alleged to have been committed after the Regula-, tion of Trade and Commerce Act was passed, and the fifth indictment waa under the Tracing with the Enemy Act. Proceeding, Mr. Ostler said that Duorkop was a native of Hamburg, and wa3 twenty-six years of age. Anyone who read the correspondence must be convinced that he had had a wide commercial experience. Prior to coming to New Zealand he had been in business in West Africa, Tonga, and Canada. In 1912 he entered into partnership in Auckland with Mr. J. H. Mackay, a young New Zealander. The firm traded chiefly in by-products. There was no suggestion throughout the case that accused had acted in any way treacherously, or had attempted to give away any military information that might be detrimental to the British Empire or help the enemy, nor had accused acted in any way the treacherous part of a spy. The whole charge against him was that ho broke one or both of the Acts deal- I ing with trading with the enemy. j ARRANGEMENTS MADE IN GERMANY. While in Germany, in 1913, Mr. Ostler continued, Duerkop made arrangements to open, up trade with two Hamburg firms. « Shipments consigned to these I firms -were (tho Crown contended) on their way when war broke oat, and an attempt was mad* to divert them to Gustav J. J. Witt, at Rotterdam. It was suggested that when the correspondence was read it would be shown clearly that the Rotterdam firm was purely the creation of Witt, of Hamburg, and was controlled entirely by him. The correspondence showed cleaTly that the capital of the Dutch firm was German, and in several letters written by Witt to accused ho spoke of the Rotterdam company as "my firm." On the Ist and 4th July, two consignments were ahipped by the Lynden, the first vessel oi the new German line which had made arrangements to trade to New Zealand. These goode, on arrival at Sydney, were transferred to another German vessel, the Furth, which was somewhere between Australia and Colombo when the war broke out. The vessel was captured by a British warship, and was taken in to Colombo. The first charge (17th September) related to thafc shipment. The allegation was that Duerkop endeavoured to have the 17 casks of casings comprising the consignment sent to Witt at Rotterdam, and that Duerkop instructed his bank to hand the shipping documents to the Dutch firm. On 27th July — a week before war broke out — fifteen casks and one case of casings tad been sent by Duerkop by the Rive,n:ia and Maheno to Sydney to* be shipped hy the Seidlitz. When war occurred the Seidlitz displayed great anxiety to get away, and after loading ten cases saiiixl, leaving six of the cases on the wharf. SEIDLITZ SEEKS REFUGE. The Seidlitz, said Sir. Ostler, took refuge at Valparaiso, and on the 28th October Duerkop (it was alleged) endeavoured to get the ten casks of casings shipped to tho Dutch firm. On 6th October Duerkop also shipped 27 casks of casings to Sydney, and these, with the six casks, left on the wharf by tho Seidlitz, were transhipped on the Tasman to Batavia, and thence shipped to Rotter--!a*jtkfr Dj*ck firm., S&ft-flfljdeac^

was that these goods had actually reached Rotterdam. On 29th June — before the war— Duerkop had shipped to a Hamburg firm 19 bales of diied sheepskins, 12 sacks cowhides, and 14 sacks of othrr goods. The vessel on which the goods | were shipped took refuge at Mozambique, and the correspondence would (the Crown submitted) show that an attempt was made to have the goods sent on to Rotterdam. On 22nd June a shipment was sent by accused to Koesber, of Hamburg. The goods consisted of nine casks casings, and were also on the vessel which sheltered at Mozambique, and the correspondence (it was submitted) would show that an .attempt had also been made to divert these cargoes to Rotterdam. Counsel submitted that the correspondence would establish that Duerkop, when he was shipping goods to Rotterdam, really knew he was shipping to Germany. Lengthy correspondence dealing with the transactions between accused and the Hamburg and Rotterdam firms was then read. The numerous letters connected with the case were still being read by Mr. Ostler when The Post went to press.