ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15821, 19 January 1915, Page 9

ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACT.

TRYING TO SUPPLY ENEMY.

CHARGES AGAINST DUERKOP

MORE CORRESPONDENCE

CASE STILL UNFINISHED.

[by telegraph— OWN- CORRESPONDENT.]

Wellington, Monday. I tie hearing of the five charges against Henriek Wilhelm Magnus Duerkop. of the firm of Duerkop a „d Mackay, of Auckland, of attempting to supply or supplying persons in Germanv with goods, were continued before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., this afternoon. Mr. H. 11. Ostler ap. peared for the Crown, and Mr. T. Neave for the accused.

| Duerkop, who gave evidence on his own ! behalf, said that his firm imported and exported New Zealand produce to Enj land. Europe, and the United States. jHe gave particulars of his business arrangements with the Hamburg firm of Gustav W. J. Witt. He consigned several lots of goods to this firm before the war. 'These, with others, were on the high seas when the war broke out. The consignments were intended for Hamburg and ether firms. When war broke out two of the German vessels carrying the cargo safely reached shelter in neutral ports. The third vessel was captured on the high seas. A portion of these shipments was originally intended for other firms. When the war broke out witness wrote informing the Hamburg firm that he was unable and unwilling to trade with them until the war had terminated. Furthermore, witness distinctly told them that although he bad a number of con signments of casings on the way to Hambu-g, he could not deliver them to them.

Witness then stated the motives which led him to send his goods to Rotterdam. Among the reasons mentioned were that British vessels at the time ran a chance of being captured by hostile warships. The, premiums on British ships were accordingly higher than on vessels running under a neutral flag. In addition to this* the London market appeared to be overstocked in the articles which his firm were handling. Witness thought that instead of dealing through England it was better to deal with neutral countries direct. Consequent upon these conclusions, witness consulted Mr. Algie. a lawyer in Auckland, and attended meetings in the Chamber of Commerce there and arrived at the decision that it would be perfectly legal to trade with Witt at Rotterdam. He was also convinced of the legality of his intended dealnigs with Rotterdam. Having satisfied himself witness wrote to Witt, of Rotterdam, asking them it they were willing to take charge of the consignments on the lead foe disposal. These consignments witness wanted tliem to sell on his firm's behalf at Rotterdam on a commission basis. Witness had never dealt with this firm at Rotterdam before. Letter to the Dutch-'Firm. In a letter on August 24 witness referred the Dutch firm to Gustav J. J. Witt, '.heir managing director at Hamburg, with whom witness had a personal acquaintance In the letters to Rotterdam witness had in no way suggested that the goods were to reach Germany. He quoted portions of a letter from Witt at Hamburg written on the outbreak of war, which he said showed they did not encourage hade with witness as all commercial relations had been stopped with Britain. Up to the present witness had received no reply from the Dutch firm i eseept a cable intimating their willingness j to take charge of consignments.

" A Prisoner of War."

At this stage Mr. Neave produced a letter received since the last hearing ot the case from the Dutch firm.

Mr. Ostler: Has not Mr. Duerkop seen this letter?

Duerkop: I am a prisoner of war on the island and as such am not allowed to receive such correspondence. Witness protested against the disabilities he was under in preparing his defence in consequence of the restrictions placed on his Liberty on Somes Island.

Mr. Ostler: As far as I am concerned I have not hindered Mr. Duerkop in the slightest in the preparation of his defence. I have supplied his. counsel with a list of all the correspondence.

Witness : But why must I be kept isolated on an island while this case is proceeding?

Mr. Ostler : The only consolation is that Englishmen in Germany are having a far worse time than you.

Duerkop : That is not so. You should not believe all the newspapers tell you. It is not true, and there should not be, retaliation.

The Magistrate : Well, we can't discuss these things here.

Mr. Neave : Mr. Duerkop's complaint is that he has not access to his books and documents, on which he relies for his defence. It is very difficult to prepare my defence under these circumstances, ' He wa3 of opinion that the Dutch company was an entirely separate company from the one in Hamburg, and being, therefore, a neutral firm in a neutral country, he was at liberty to trade. The Two Firms. In explanation of the letter mentioned in the case for the prosecution which bore the Hamburg postmark, but which was superscribed by Witt's firm, witness said that as the managing director was the same as the German firm, this was not surprising. Moreover, the same letter stated that trade with witness, on account of the war, could not be proceeded with.

To Mr. Ostler ■. Witness knew about the Rotterdam firm from his previous visit to Hamburg. During that visit witness knew that (Justav Witt had an interest in the Dutch firm. He did not know that the same person had a controlling interest.

Witness hesitated when asked whether the thought ever struck him that the goods would reach Germany from Rot terdam. "I must guard myself against ~Te sti ve questions," said the witness. "When I consigned the goods to Rotterdam I intended that they should go to a neutrr.l country. I did not think or intend that they should go to Germany." Letter Received Through the Censor. Mr. Ostler said that he had received that day through the censor a letter in the Rotterdam firm's envelope dated November 24. One of the enclosures was from the Hamburg firm. This communication intimated that through their Rotterdam- firm they (the German firm) liad come in receipt of Duerkop's letters of July 31, August 6 and September 8, the contents of which were duly noted. The writers regretted very much that Duerkop's firm had such bad tuck with the two consignments. "However,'' stated the writer, "w« cannot do anything here in this business." Too letter went, on to

refer to the detention cf the ships Firth and Seydlitz and intimated that tney vould write on hearing about them. The market, continued the letter was very much higher owing to the war.'They were planning in Germany to establish a credit bank to take over the former London credit but the matter had not yet been settled. The writers hoped in conclusion that the value of Duerkop's two shipments would not a* lost but that it would be got back at the final account of the two countries. Mr. Ostler remarked on the significance of the words in the above communication, " through my Rotterdam firm I came in receipt of your letter." Mr. Ostler then produced a copy of a private letter dated November 4, which was written to defendant in German. The letter had been translated, and counsel asked Duerkop to hold the original German letter while he read the translation. Itus letter acknowledged the receipt of a letter from Duerkop, dated September 10. and referred to the war as a special matter and to commercial affairs connected with Duerkop's business. At its conclusion the letter expressed regret that Duerkop had to depend on neuter s and other newspaper agencies tor war news. According to the tables from these agencies. continued the letter, the English and trench troops continued pushing onwaids out probably they are pushing back.J wards. "Up to now." continued the letter. " the Germans have pushed forward into Prance, and the devil himself cannot drive them out."

The letter referred to Duerkop's two consignments by the Firth and Sevdlitz. t -My Rotterdam firm." said the writer, "will grant ,an advance of 75 per cent. (1) if the export of casings to Germany is permitted. (2) if. in fact, the consignment reaches it. No one." added the writer. " could pretend what will happen, because the English are stopping neutral, as well as German, vessels.

•' I have just received the letters," was Duerkop s reply to the reading of them Mr. Ostler: In the face of this, you still persist you did not know the good's would get to Germany ?

Duerkop: Yes". I do. After further discussion, it could be seen that the case could not be concluded to-day and it was further adjourned till to-morrow.