HEARING RESUMED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18065, 17 April 1933, Page 6

HEARING RESUMED

THE MOSCOW TRIAL A CONFUSED WITNESS DEFENCE EVi DEN CIS REJECTED (British Official Wireless.) Rec. 2 p.m. RUGBY, April 16. At yesterday evening’s session of the Moscow trial, Oleinik’s evidence was continued. lie was at first led by the prosecution into accusations against Monkhouse, and then against Nordwali. Oleinik was somewhat confused in his story, at one moment referring to Nordwali, for whom lie expressed personal animosity, as ‘‘a very experienced spy,” and ailenvards stating) that ho was afraid to give Not’dwall spying information since he .suspected Nordwali of being likely to report him to the Soviet authorities. Oleinik got into further difficulties when lie challenged Nordwali to repeat “a conversation he had with Gregory regarding wrecking,” and then himself asked counsel to define the tiv’in ‘‘wreck-

ing. Monkhouse then gave his evidence in chief, and was questioned by the president of the court about his activities at Archangel, and his acquaintance with Richards there and elsewhere. He described details of breakdowns involving machinery supplied by his firm, and admitted obtaining general information to give his firm data for .determining its credit policy. Thornton asked to bo shown a document read to him in prison in which Kutuzova stated that he had received money from the British consulate. The prosecutor stated that such a reference could not be made public.

Gregory's examination followed, but no allegation against him was pressed. Further questions were'then put to Monkhouse, and in tho course of argument with tho prosecutor he admitted that the time of uninterrupted questioning in prison, during which lie had been aslced to confess, might have been shorter than 18 hours.

Gn the court reassembling this morning, the prosecution asked for the inclusion in tho documents of the prison time sheets. This was permitted. Monkhouse asked for the inclusion of correspondence rebutting Oleinik s evidence, but this was refused.

Eight questions by Monkhouse wore then submitted to the expert commission attached tc tho court, and the court adjourned until this evening. ‘‘Those answers don’t satisfy me, cried Monkhouse, springing to iiis feet after a black-bearded Slav had read the court’s replies to his technical questions, two of which were disallowed. The answers included an assertion that a turbine at Ivanovo failed to fulfil the guarantee, and that Vickers’ employees neglected to correct the detective blades. “1 would like to argue some points,’ continued Monkhouse. “You should have notified Arcos it wo didn’t fulfil pur guarantees.” M. Vyshinsky entered with a bulky brief case, yawned, glanced at his watch, drank a glass of Russian tea brought by a guard, ancl then began a perfevvid speech. “We are approaching the end of the trial,” he said. “We shall soon have accurate results. Our enemies tried to press us too hard. They lost patience. 1 hope the result is a blow to them. They forgot that they were dealing with the Soviet, which won’t allow anyone to interfere in its internal affairs.” M. Vyshinsky, his face more and move hectic, punctuated his sentences with downward chops of his left hand as iio contrasted Mr. Runciman’s and Mr. Patrick’s views of Russian justice. He alleged that Britain practised the third degree in India, and also in the BaillieStewart case. He added: “We have the only true iustice in the world.”

M. Vishinsky accused Monkhouse and Thornton of attempting to insult the court in accordance with London instructions, and ridiculed tho allegations that they were subjected to tho third degree, or a frame up. M. Vishinsky added: “Oleinik and Kutusova are the most detestable of Russia’s enemies. The Russian accused are natural saboteurs, but cannot bo pardoned. The Soviet does not fear them. Monkhouse’s and Thornton’s crimes arc too disgusting for words. They are worse than the Russian prisoners.” The court here indulged in a 20 minutes’ recess.