ALLEGED BREACH SOLICITOR AND AGENT CHARGED

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1940, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH

SOLICITOR AND AGENT CHARGED

(Per Press Association —Copyright)

WELLINGTON, September 13

Breaches of the Finance Emergency Regulations were alleged against Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, a solicitor, and Norman John Suckling j a manufacturers’ representative, who wore jointly charged at the Court to-day (1) with being parties to a, transaction involving the conversion of New Zealand currency into sterling currency at a rate bf exchange other than the current rate; (2) with making payment outside of New Zealand; and (3) with dealing with money payable outside of New Zealand as a consideration for receiving 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 as follows: That a Mr S. J. Haydon, who went to live in California, 'because of his wife’s health, was Vgiven permission by 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 the attorney in New Zealand for Haydon, and on April 30 hr was informed by the Union Bank that that was t’le last day on which the April permit would be available. Having no funds available in Haydon’s account, Sutherland arranged an illegal transaction with Suckling, whereby Suckling paid £IOB for the £IOO, which was equivalent to £BO sterling. Sutherland banked t'he £IOB to Haydon’s credit, and endorsed a draft with the signature of Haydon. It was despatched by Suckling, to his principals in Yorkshire, Suckling asking that £BO sterling be placed to his credit in England.

Giving evidence, Sutherland said that Haydon mentioned to him, before leaving New Zealand that he had a friend in Suckling’s office, and that he would be pleased to have a connection 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 he banked the £IOB given hftn by Suckling to Haydon’s credit in the trust account, and endorsed a draff and gave it to Suckling. He did not know the terms of t-lie arrangement between Haydon and Suckling’s office about the money. His principal concern on April 30, when all of the transactions except the handing over of tin draft took place, 'was that he might miss collecting the April permit on his client’s behaif.

Answering Mr Biss, for t-*e Crown Sutherland said that on April 30, Ik did not have enough money of Hay don’s to pay for the April permit. li. participating in this transaction, lu assumed that some arrangement hat been made between Haydon, Suckling and Firth’s (Suckling’s Yorkshire principals) whereby -Firt-Vs might be taking money on Haydon’s behalf acting perhaps, as his bankers. He thought that the draft was going to England for Haydon for his benefit.

Suckling, in evidence, said that lu was KtPare that outgoing letters were dealt with by She censor. The draff was sent out* in the mail in tile ordinary straight-forward way, and he was greatly surprised when he was informed that it had been held up. To Mr Biss, Suckling said that he

mentioned the regulations to Sutherland, whose reply was that he was get ting a draft from a trading hank, and it obviously must have the authority of the Reserve Bank. Suckling said that he did not then know Haydon’? permit had been issued months previously.

To Mr Pope (who appeared for Suckling himself), Suckling said that lie understood 'that any arrangements made before the April regulations could legally he completed. After evidence and legal argument had been submitted,- the Magistral said that lie considered cases of this nature to he 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 tie case for the purpose of making the reg illations more public. T*ie police were not pressing for a heavy penalty, but they wanted it to be brought before the public, and to he understood that breaches of these regulations were regarded seriously.