DIRTY BLANKETS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1787, 5 November 1919, Page 2

DIRTY BLANKETS.

BREACH OF WAR CONTRACT. I.OCAL LAUNDRY PROSECUTED. The hearing of the case against Brown's Highbury Laundry, Ltd., on a eharge of a breach of a War contract made with the Crown for the washing of military blankets, by not washing certain of the said blankets in a proper manner, and by delivering them not properly washed as they should have been, pursuant to the said contract, contrary to the War Regulations Act, 1914, dated November, 1915, and published in the "New Zealand Gazette" of November 15, 1915, was concluded at the Magistrate's Court vesterday, before Mr S. E. McCarthy,' S.M. Mr S. G. Baymond, K.C., conducted the case for the" Crown, and Mr- M. J. Gresson appeared for the defendant company. Sergeant-Major H." E. Patchett, of Group 10, concluded his evidence by stating that, after the master of the Pakeha, the steward and he had made their inspection, a paper was signed by all three reporting on the condition of the blankets. To Mr Gresson: The blankets were stored in four different storerooms on the vessel. It was a difficult thiug to tell whether grey blankets had been cashed, but they were certainly dusty. He had considerable experience of military blankets. The musty smell of them indicated that they were not clean. It was not a damp smell, but a smell of •unwashed clothing. He would not say they were old blankets. They were of an exceptionally thick type. To Mr Raymond: They were chiefly rlusty. If they had been wet, he considered that a great deal of the dustwould have been removed. A "HUMAN" SMELL. Thomas H. Chudleigh, Marine Superintendent for the North Island of the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company, stated that towards the end of June the Pakeha came to Wellington from Timaru. He saw some thousands of these blankets on the vessel, and, on his instructions, they were forwarded to the Vietoria Laundry at Wellington. . The outer blankets were clean, but the inner ones were not. With the inner blankets there was a "human" smell. The Pakeha was a fully-requisitioned liner. The blankets were the property of the Imperial Government, on charge to the master of the ship. The blankets were sent, as stated, to Yictoria Laundry, with whom his company had a standing contract, and the Imperial Government got the benefit of this. To Mr Gresson: He gave instructions for ail the blankets to be washed. The blankets were a little coarser than the blankets of a few years ago. In every instance, with requisitioned ships, the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company acted exactly in these matters as if the ships •were still being run for the company's use. From his own knowledge he did not know if the Imperial Government paid for the laundering. He knew that the amounts were requisitioned for, as he, or one of the other marine superintendents, signed these. He could not state definitely, and from" his knowledge, whether the blankets belonged to the Imperial Government or not. Herbert Harold Flanagan, secretary to the Victoria Laundry Company, Wellington, was the next witness called. He stated that he remembered 3700 blankets arriving at his company's laundry from the Pakeha to be washed. He rouM not say if the same blankets were returned to the Pakeha. Three or four ships of the one company might be in port at the one time, ami, in that case, the number of blankets sent would be returned, but not necessarily the same blankets. It might take over a fortnight to wash 3000 or 4000 blankets at a busy time. The contract for the ship's

washing wis a written one, and had been made before the War. The eontract price for washing and disinfecting military blankets in a thorough manner, under the contract, was 6d per blanket. THREE POINTS RAISED.

Mr Gresson called the Magistrate's I attention to the wording of the regulation quoted by the prosecuting counsel, which he stated was decidedly vague. Under it, anybody who might commit any small 1 breach of. contract would be liable to a term of imprisonment. He submitted that the correct interpretation was that to commit a breach of contract the defendant company would have to break off a contract in the middle of the performance. He wished to place three points before the Court: —That the contract was alleged to have been made with the Crown; that to have made a breach of the contract must have been, in the sense he pointed out, to have started the work and not completed it;, and lastly that the breaking of the contract would have to have been "wilful." On the actual evidence submitted, he could find not a shred of evidence to prove that a contract had been entered into with Brown's laundry. Tn any case he contended that it was not a contract made with the Crown. It was obvious that it was the Shaw, Savill ami Albion Company who would be sued in the event of a case being filed by the laundry company. They would not sue his Majesty the King. The word "Crown" in the regulation referred to the New Zealand Government, as Parliament had no power to pass laws affecting subjects abroad. Mr Gresson read extracts from various Acts showing how far a company could be dealt with, as a company, in the case of a charge of this nature. Mr Raymond submitted that he had proved a contract to wash the blankets. The account for washing .'{999 blankets had been rendered and charged for at 1/- per blanket. The inevitable inference was that they were to be washed, and if a fraud had been committed it was a substantial contract. The Shaw, Savill and Albion Company was acting as agents for Whenever a contract was made with the Crown, it was made with some person for the Crown. The 'defendant company knew that it was washing military blankets, and in defrauding the Crown was not entitled to any commiseration. Mr Gresson had said that the Crown referred to in the Act meant the New Zealand Government. The Crown was the Crown, and it was a no less heinous offence because the blankets belonged to the Imperial authorities. Sedition was an offence against the Crown, which was outside New Zealand, but the punishment applied in the Dominion just the same. They were in the present case dealing with an Imperial matter. He thought the defendant eompauy should reeehve a maximum penalty. Mr McCarthy reserved his judgment, and stated that he would hear a further case against Ernest Street (Mr W. Sim) for aiding and abetting the defendant company on the same charge, this morninsr.