ENEMY TRADING.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 960, 9 March 1917, Page 8

ENEMY TRADING.

M. S. H, MANNING CONVICTED. HEAVY FINES IMPOSED. MAGISTRATE'S RESERVED JUDGMENT. The "trading with the enemy" charges against Mildred S. 11. Manning, indent merchant. Christchurch, were the subject of a reserved judgment which was delivered by Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day.

Dealing with the first charge against Manning of a breach of the regulations of December 17, 1914, made under the "War Regulations Act 1914" in telegraphing on May 8 to Inamura, Kobe, Mr Bailey's judgment stated:—"The cable from Mr G. H. Manning was as follows:—"Waiting reply Eraser Manning." It was held thai he had thereby attempted to indirectly communicate by telegraph through the said Inamura with Winkler and Co., Japan, a firm in respect of which an order was made on December 14, 1915, prohibiting communication with such i firm.

The defendant was an indent mer- j chant carrying on business in Christ- j church, and has since 1913 had business relations with the firm of Winckler and Co. From the correspondence produced it was apparent that from August 27, 1914, just after the outbreak of war the defendant was apprehensive as to the position of business relations .between himself and the firm in question, on account of the German nationality of the members of the firm or some of them. This apprehension was mu- j tual for we find that early in the' year, 1915, Winckler and Co. wrote to the defendant pointing out the i difficulty they were having in, financing with the English banks in Japan, and giving special instruc-1 tions as to matters of finance. It was unnecessary to go into full details, but only the part of the instructions j which were material to the present case. All drafts, etc., were to be drawn on or made out in the name of N. Inamura, who was a Japanese, and manager of one of the department's of Winckler's business. Right through the correspondence of 1915, Winckler and Co. impressed on the defendant the precautions to be taken as to finance; and the difficulties the firm was having with the banks in Japan, and the fact that the firm was registered, and doing business in accordance with Japanese law. In December, 1915, the firm of Winckler & Co. was gazetted as a prohibited firm, and on the 21st of that month the defendant put in a cable for transmission to the firm. but transmission was refused by the Telegraph Department. The defendant sent the cable to N. Inamura, and from that on his correspondence was conducted with N. Inamura. On February 6, 191G, the defendant received a cablegram in code, which had been translated as follows: — "The business will be transferred to Peter Fraser, Kobe. Market remains the same. Inamura." The defendant did not accept this cable definitely until it was confirmed by letter, as he wrote to that effect to both Peter Fraser & Co. and N. Inamura, and continued to send orders to Inamura. On May 8 the defendant sent the cable, the subject of the information.

The defendant did not deny the sending of the telegram, but sought to justify himself on the pica that he was under the impression that N. Inamura had severed his connection with the firm of Winckler & Co. and was in business for himself. Mr Bailey stated that he had been carefully through the correspondence, and could find nothing to justify such an assumption. The defendant could not produce any letter from which such an inference could be drawn, but said he was sure there was such a letter, which must have been mislaid. The only fact which could give colour to such an assumption was that from the early part of 1916 N. Inamura corresponded on paper bearing his own name as a heading, and not that of Winckler & Go. But it was apparent from the correspondence that Inamura and Winckler & Co. were in some way connected.

Mr Bailey detailed portions of the correspondence which had led him to form this opinion, and said that it was quite clear that any business relations that existed between the defendant and N. Inamura, existed with him as representing Winckler and Co. '"I cannot really conceive how the defendant could think otherwise," stated the Magistrate in conclusion. The telegram in question undoubtedly had relation to some business between the defendant and Winckler and Co." On this charge the defendant would be convicted and fined £2f» and costs. OTHER CHARGES. "There are two other informations," said Mr Bailey tn Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., who appeared for the Crown, "What are you going to do about them?" Mr Raymond: I would ask for your judgment, your Worship. Mr Bailey: On the charge then of sending a remittance through the hank on May 2~), I will also enter a conviction and line the defendant a further i'2,") and costs.

Mr Cuningham, lor flic defendant, said that in regard to the third charge, the alleged offence was only in respect of the sending of a letter. Manning had been advised on June 1 by cablegram from the Consul at Kobe that Inamura bad severed his connection with Winckler & Co. "I will not take such a strong view of this charge," said Mr Bailey, '"but will merely record a conviction without penalty, but subject to the payment of costs." Mr Cuningham explained that it had just come to his knowledge that AVinckler & Co. had only been gazetted on the "black" list on June 30, 191 C, although the Post Office refused to deliver mail from December 4, 1915. During that period, therefore, only technical breaches liad

been committed, as Winckler & Co. were simply under suspicion. On Mr Raymond's application, that the costs allowed should reimburse the Crown, solicitors' costs were iixed at £3 3/- in respect of each o{ the three charges.