ENGINEERS' DEFENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21471, 20 April 1933, Page 9

ENGINEERS' DEFENCE

ADDITIONAL DETAILS DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS UNLIKELIHOOD EMPHASISED EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright British Wireless RUGBY, April 18 To-day's session of the Moscow trial opened with tho speech by Thornton's counsel, who cast doubt on the evidence of the other accused against his client. He also pointed out that, "wrecking is not a new crime in Russia, and it is unnecessary to assume that Russians were guilty of wrecking or were under Thornton's control." As far as Thornton's own admissions were concerned Gregory was as much implicated as Thornton himself, yet the prosecution was not proceeding with the charge against Gregory. Counsel then discredited Madame Xutosova's evidence, suggesting tho unlikelihood of Monkhouse and Thornton "discussing information and planning wreckage."

Counsel added: "What in Britain is considered as economic information is here in the Soviet Union covered by the law regarding military espionage." Ho concluded by stating that outside tho Soviet "so-called commissions" were taken as a matter of course, and the "bribes" given by Thornton were not inducements to wrecking. These facts should bo considered in Thornton's favour. Arguments for Two Accused Nordwall's * counsel described the transaction in which his client was alleged to have given a fur coat as a bribo as one which Nordwall had considered of no importance and therefore had forgotten. This accounted for any contradictions in his statement. There was no evidence that the undefined information given by Nordwall regarding the Red Army was in any way incriminating. Counsel recommended the acquittal of Nordwall. Cushny's counsel said his client's largo acquaintance among Russians was no evidence that he had been collecting information. There was in particular no evidence that he was collecting military information. Turning to the fact that Cushny had refused to answer questions during tho examination, counsel said this did not imply guilt. The fact that ho could not explain defects and machinery breakdowns would not show that he was responsible for "wrecking. Lawyer's Tribute to Monkhouse

Monkhouse's counsel said that all foreigners in Russia were interested in the development of the country. This was no evidence cf espionage. Monkhouse had denied participation in espionage or machinery wrecking, and his admissions involved only a bribe. The only evidence against him was provided by Oleinik and Mme. Kutosova. Tho former denied supplying information before 1928, while since 1928 he was not connected with Monkhouse. Mine. Kutosova's evidence did not contain any concrete facts. Discussing the likelihood of Monkliouso being guilty of any charges, counsel described him as "one of the majority of foreign specialists who give instructions to us in an honest, straightforward and conscientious way." Counsel dealt with what Monkhouse described as a present given to Dolgov, and urged that Monkhouse could not have considered it as a bribe when given. It was a transaction between Thornton and Dolgov, sanctioned by Richards, now a director of the Vickers Company. Counsel asked the Court to judge the case only on its merits and this would mean acquittal. Tinal Phases ol the Trial After counsel for the Russian accused had made their speeches, pleading extenuating circumstances for their clients, the final appeals of all the accused were heard. Monkhouse made a statement at some length. He repudiated the prosecutor's allegations that he had misinformed the British Embassy about his interrogation in prison, and he showed complete inaccuracy in the prosecutor's calculations of the period of his examination. The New Zealander claimed that he had always valued his association 'With the development of Soviet industry and it was inexplicable that he should have been accused of wrecking it.

Unconvincing Aspects of Trial Gregory contended himself with declaring his innocence. All the Russians, including Madame Kutosova and Sokolov, pleaded guilty. The Judges then retired to consider their verdict. Those with experience in British courts ruefully reflect on how a firstrate British lawer would have annihilated the prosecution's case and have devoted the whole day, not 45 minutes, to tearing the Ogpu's case to shreds. Tho obvious inhibitions upon the Russian counsel and the Soviet's different conception of their duties and liberties remain tho most unconvincing aspect of the trial.

Russian newspapers signalised the last day of the trial by whipping up a tremendous spy scare and copiously referring to Bruce-Lockh&rt, O'Reilly, Colonel Lawrence and other alleged British spies. ■>, The press generally demanded tho death penalties in order to demonstrate the Soviet's strength. The Pravda declared that tho Vickers employees wevo preparing for war.

MR. A. MONKHOUSE A TARANAKI TRIBUTE A correspondent who knew Mr. Monkhouse in his youth writes as follows: —" May I say a. few words of Mr. Allan Monkhouse, who it seems to mo has acquitted himself well at the monstrous trial in Moscow. His father, Mr. William Monkhouse, was ono of the most highlv respected men in tho Stratford and K Ith a 111 districts, where he lived with liis equally respected wife for over 16 years. They were both very well known lo me. Their sons were brought up with tho greatest care, especially with regard to honourable dealings'and upright behaviour. I have not seen Mr. Allan Monkhouso since he was a lad, but he gave great promise of following in his parents' footsteps. Since he left New Zealand I have corresponded with his relatives and heard how greatly lie was thought of by all ho came in contact with in his career. I know that in the past ho has consistently looked upon and spoken of tho best side of the Soviet Government. Ho would bo incapable of the offences charged against him."