NATURALISATION LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4476, 17 February 1917, Page 5

NATURALISATION LAW.

INTERESTING AUCKLAND LEASE. (Press Association Telegram.) AUCKLAND, Feb. 16. A case was brought in the Magistrate’s Court to-day by the Customs Department against John A. Bock, merchant, who was charged that being an alien enemy, he engaged in foreign trade, contrary to the war regulations. Mr Selwyn Mays stated that defendant had imported from California a line of insect powder used by defendant for manufacturing purposes. When the goods arrived in December they were held by the Customs on the < ground that defendant was an alien enemy subject. When the Customs held the goods defendant wrote, stating that, though born in Germany of German parents, he had come to New Zealand when young and, by the naturalisation of his fathei, then in ■South Australia, he became a- naturalised British -subject. ■ In 1900 he came to New Zealand and. had been there ever since. He had never Keen outside the Colonies since his arrival with bis father in 1880. Defendant bad not, however, been naturalised in New 'Zealand and, though the regulations might seem drastic, the Department could 31 ot allow any person who was an ememy subject, even technically such, to trade with any place at all outside the Dominion Mr Lundoh, for the defendant, dwelt on the injustice to defendant that though he was naturalised! m South Australia by his father’s naturalisation 36 years ago and always lived and been in every respect a British colonial subject, he was now regarded as an alien enemy subject because he had not carried out the formality of naturalisation m New Zealand, when he was ignorant that such formalitv was needed. . Defendant’s brother gave evidence that he belt ved that his father was really Danish and had shifted to Hamburg, 'where witness and his brother- 1 were hrn. His father’s mother could not rviak German The Mag’atrate said children bom in German; of German parents were not deemed naturalised through the naturalisation of the father, except in that part of the Empire where the naturalisation took place. Defendant,- by virtue of Lis father’s naturalisation was still a naturalised British Subject in South Australia, but when he came to New Zealand lie did not take out naturalisation papers, he became a German subject. His Worship said he was not reflecting on defendant, as there was no reason to believe he was less loyal than if born in Soxith Australia. He was a German subject by law &na therefore within the scope of the regu r ]a TheMagistrite said it waathe first case of its kind in new Zealand and was not serious. A fine of was imposed-. m . *