WAR REGULATIONS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17415, 28 February 1917, Page 3

WAR REGULATIONS.

AN ENEMY PERM;. CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING INDIRECT COMMUNICATION. INDENT AGENT IN COURT. M. S. H. Manning (Mr Cuningham), indent agent, Cashel Street, Christchurch, was charged at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., on information laid by James M'Ourdy Tudhope, Civil Servant, Wellington, that May 8 last, at Ckristchurch, he did telegraph tolmamura, Kobe, as follows: " Waiting reply, Eraser Manning," therein' attempting to indirectly communicato by telegraph through the said Imamura with Winckler and Co., Japan, a firm in respect of which an order was made on December 14, 1915, under Regulation 2 of additional regulations under the War Regulations Act, 1914, contrary to Regulation 5. (2) On May 25. at Christchurch, ho did telegraph to Imamura, Kobe, as follows': "lmamura, Kobe, paid Nikko on presentation bank's remittance re- ' turned by post office, Manning," thereby attempting to indirectly eomnnmi.cato through the said lmamura with 'Winckler and Co;, contrary to regulations. (3; That on July 5 last, at Christ church, he did post a letter to N. Imamura, Kobe, Japan, thereby attempting to indirectly communicate ! with .Winckler and Co.. contrary to I regulations. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Raymond. K.C., appeared to proseruta Mr Raymond said that on October 10 last a search warrant was executed by Detective Gibson, who entered defendant's premises and obtained therefrom a large amount of correspondence, etc. On November 2 he executed j a furl her search warrant, seizing further . correspondence, books and documents. Among these was n packet of carbon copies of letters and telegrams addressed to Winckler and Co., or lmamura, who was the business manager of the firm in Japan. It would bo shown that for a long time-pas: Manning had been doing a considerable business with Winckler and Co. and that he was on terms of considerable intimacy with one of the partners of the enemy firm. Mr Raymond quoted from lettors written by the defendant in 1914 to the firm "of Winckler and. Co., and said that on April 1, 1915, Manning wrote that he was forwarding a draft to Kobe, to lmamura, and later arranging letters of credit. This correspondence was prior to the date or order regarding Wanckler and Co., "nut it proved that Manning was doing considerable business with the German firm. On December 14 Winckler and Co. was made a " prohibited" film, and oil December 21 Manning telegraphed in code- to "Winckler and Co., but thai telegram was returned to him by t-h_ postal authorities. He, however, sent the same message on the Rame day to lmamura, who he knew was business manager of Winckler and Co. Imamura's identity was not known to the postal authorities, but information was subsequently received from sources outsido Now Zealand. No proceedings could be taken in connection with that telegram owing to over six months having elapsed but it proved that Manning was well aware of Imamura's connection with the prohibited firm of Winckler and Co. Mr Raymond quoted from further letters from defendant to Imamura, and to Winckler and Co., and also tho replies received by Manning, indicating a means whereby an evasion of the remittance regulations could bo made, that the letters of credit should be made payable to Imamura. Winckler and Co. claimed to be registered as a Japanese firm, but that did not change its . nationality, which was German. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank had refused, apparently, to take any more of the firm's drafts, hence the necessity to have tho letters of credit in the name of Imamura. Subsequently Winckler and Co. recommended Manning to transfer his business with Fraser and Co., which wafe said by them to bo a purely British firm. Mr Raymond also put in bundles of correspondence from lmamura to Manning, orders from Manning to lmamura, after the date Winckler and Co. was made a prohibited firm, and correspondence between Fraser and Co. and defendant, On February 9, 1916, Manning wrote to Frasers stating that I orders were being sent to Imamura, as the New Zealand postal officials wpuld * not accept communications addressed to ' Winckler and Co., and that no doubt the orders sent to Imamura would reach Frasers. Mr Raymond urged that the regulations gave tho Court the widest powers as to the evidence to be admitted. Detective Thomas Gibson gave evidence of executing search warrants of defendants' premises and seizing correspondence, etc. To Mr Cuniugham: Defendant's manager gave him every assistance. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Cuningham said that Manning had acted honestly, if erroneously, in the matter. He had no idea he was breaking the regulations. He had been trading with vVinckler and Co. since 1913. Wiucklers were solely commission agents. Defendant had never imported German goods to New Zealand, and had to do only with the Japanese business of Wincklcrs. Defendant was led to believe that Imamura would buy out Wiucklers, or would start business for himself, and honestly did not kuow the relationship of lmamura with Wiucklers, or with Fraser and Co. Defendant's telegram of May 8 in uo way referred to Wiucklers, nor did his subsequent communications. On Juno 1 last Imamura definitely severed hisbusiness connection with Wincklers. ■ In all his dealings, Manning had made it clear that ho wished to have nothing to do with German good:;. In July, 1916, he went to Kobe, Japan, and there learned that Imamura was a partner in a Japanese firm, and in no way connected with Wincklcrs. Mildred Sidney Herman Manning, giving evidence, said thai? he believed that Imamura had started business for himself He never communicated with Wincklere after learning that the post > office would not accept correspondence. When he learned that his business was being transferred to Fraser and Co. be decided to go to Japan to find oujt the state of affairs for himself. He called on the British Attache at Kobe, and the firm he then recommended had previously been with Winckler and Co. Imamura was with that firm, but witness did not know his standing. He had told his American agents not to send him German goods. To Mr Raymond: He knew Wincklers had Gorman?; in the firm, and he had ooutinuoii business with the firm to December, 1915. ' Mr Raymond: So that although y 0 eons-cience would not allow you to deal with Germans in America, it allowed you to continue doing so with Germans in Japan. , Answering Mr Raymond, the witness : said that the draft, mentioned in thtv telegraifi of May 26 was one drawn on witness by Winckler and Company. He could not produce any document to show that Winckler's business had been transferred to Imumura. Apparently, Imumura was an employee

of Winckler's during the time the communications were made, but witness was unawaro of tho fact. Until ho arrived in Japan last year witness believed that Imumura had taken over Winckler's business Mr Raymond: How do you reconcile that with this letter you received from Winckler's on February 4. 1910, in which they tell you their Australian business had been transferred to Fraser and Company? Witness: I do not remember seeing that, letter. Mr Raymond: Vet you wrote on February" 19 to Fraser's, saying that you -understood they had taken over Winckler's business. Harold Alfred Farhmd, manager to tho defendant., also gave evidence. Mr Bailey said that in view of the defence set' up it would be necessary for him to go" through all the correspondence. Decision would be reserved.