ESPIONAGE CHARGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21468, 17 April 1933, Page 9

ESPIONAGE CHARGES

r CASE FOR PROSECUTION FIRM DENIALS GIVEN ALLEGED WRECKING PLOTS NORDWALL IMPLICATED By Telegraph Press Association-Copyright (Received April IG. 5.5 p.m ) nti,, h Wireless RUGBY. April 15 At the trial in Moscow yesterday Thornton was under examination for about four hours. The prosecution again put to him the allegation of systematic . espionage through subordinates, which ho firmly denied. Apart from his inter- ; est in general information Thornton ad- . nutted his interest in information bear- [ mg on the Soviet Government's sol- . vency in view of the large credits advanced to it by his firm. . The prosecutor was understood to - sho ™ surpriso and to suggest that these admissions tallied with their accusa- . tions. . The third witness called was Lobanov. ; Like the other Russian accused who ■ have pleaded guilty, ho described his . anti-Soviet views as having been taken advantage of by one of the Vickcrs' employees—in tliis case Nordwall —with i whom he worked at Ivgres. He escribed at length the wrecking of works, which ho alleged ho had undertaken 011 Nordwall's instruction, and for vrhich ho said he had received 5000 roubles from Nordwall, as well as a fur coat. Nordwall's Complete Denial Nordwall completely denied everything, Lobanov had said, pointing out that ho had in fact attempted to dissuade} Lobanov from his anti-Soviet views. Ho explained the transaction involving the fur coat as having taken place through a third party to whom it belonged, an English fitter, who was paid for it by Lobanov. Nordwall added: "I think anyone would have done the same thing in my place." The examination of Lobanov was then continued. It was led by the prosecution to obtain reaffirmations by him of Nordwall's supposed anti-Soviet views and alleged plan for machine wrecking. The rest of the morning session was occupied with the examination of Lebedev, another of the Russian accused, who is claimed by the prosecution to have participated with Lobanov in the wrecking organisation at Ivgres, acting under Nordwall's instructions. Woman's Story of Espionage The prosecution obtained from Madame Kutozova, secretary of the Vickers Company's Moscow office, and from other Russians who had pleaded guilty general statements to the effect that Thornton had engaged in espionage. Madame Kutozova also alleged that Monkhouse and Thornton had not hesitated to discuss their plans for machine wrecking in her presence. Thornton then admitted that Mr. C. T. Richards, the Vickers Company's London manager, also was interested : in information about the Soviet Union, j When the latter's past as an Intelli- | gence Officer in 1918 was mentioned a j murmur of interest ran through the ! Court. | Tho prosecutor, being unable to se- ! cure a desired admission of espionage from Thornton showed him a statement j inculpating himself and others signed | by him in prison. He denied all the ini criminating passages and pointed out ! that when he made it he was in such a state that he would have written anything. Ho wrote under moral pressure. ESort to Prove Bribery The prosecution then turned to the ! question of money passed by Thornton jto his English subordinates and to Russians. Madame Kutozova, questioned in this connection, confirmed all her depositions made in prison regarding Thornton's monetary transactions. The only transaction admitted by the defence, however, was explained jby Monkhouse as a loan to Dol- ! gov which subsequently was written off. ! In questioning Krashetnimikov at i the trial to-day, Thornton was able to ! show that all the defects in machinery | to which the Russian had referred were ! well known to the management of the | electrical station. j At one stage of his examination by j the prosecutor, Krashetnimikov was asked if he understood the difference j between a Soviet citizen carrying oiiu i wrecking activities and a foreigner doing so. He said ho understood it was treason in the former case. Russians Accused of Perjury John Cushny did not accept the apparent implication of the prosecution that his extensive acquaintances among his fellow-Russian engineers was piima facie evidence of his guilt. Ho said the Russians who wero giving evidence against him were perjuring themselves, I and repeated this phrase when tho prosecutor suggested that ho meant I they were not telling the truth, i At the end of his examination i Cushnv asked permission to make a ! statement, but was told by tho prcsij dent it must bo postponed. ' The latter part of the session was spent in a further examination by the prosecutor of Oleinik. This was again directed against Thornton, who, according to Oleinik, had arranged for part of the latter's salary to bo paid to him in England. His statement that 2000 roubles were transferred to his English account was difficult to reconcile with the amount of his salary. He continued his allegatiou against Thornton of bribery for machine wrecking "at lots of places," but fould quote only one of them. 4 G-regory Charged by Russian Oleinik also stated thatf'o provided military information, but # llcn ™ as questioned it transpired J^ 1 the m " formation was based ori 1 "? observation that troops were tn|t < ?' lin £ , in onc train while ho was tralp n 6 « an"'oleinik explained thJ* 'P*""®' work wu m the intcfc °< a.cortain group, and not tho mtcrcsfcs of the Vickcrs Cornpaiif- , r+ | Another Russian fed, Z.vert, said Thornton had br.# d { o fSi one of the British pri| onel3 > ot propa ga As a Zivert's evident/ J nd a ud g iS r ars pro—efficiency had heerf 'gP B os ; roi he cnbing his work # } t ' h;lfc it collk l ' uick,y -