DEATH PENALTY ESCAPED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 740, 19 April 1933, Page 1

DEATH PENALTY ESCAPED.

Imprisonment and Deportation for

British Engineers.

THORNTON FARES THE WORST.

(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Received April 19, 12.15 p.m.) MOSCOW, April 18. NONE of the six British engineers—Alan Monkhouse, W. H. Thornton, W. H. Macdonald, Charles Nordwall, John Cushny and C. Gregory—or the Russians—Mme. Kutusova and Guesev and Lobanov—were sentenced to death on charges of machine wrecking, espionage and bribery. Of the British accused, Thornton fared the worst, being sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Macdonald received two years’ imprisonment, and Cushny, Nordwall and Monkhouse were ordered to be deported within three days. As was indicated by the trend of the trial, Gregory was acquitted. The sentences were most harsh in the cases of Guesev and Lobanov, who each have to serve ten years’ imprisonment. Mme. Kutusova, secretary to Metropolitan Vickers’ Moscow* office, was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.

The newspapers of Moscow signalised i the last day of the trial by whipping up a tremendous spy scare, copiously referring to John H, Bruce' Lockhart, W. E. O’Reilly and Colonel Lawrence, other alleged British spies. The newspapers generally demanded the death penalties in order to demonstrate the Soviet's strength. The newspaper “ Pravda ” declared that the Vickers employees were preparing for war. The court was packed and excited at the resumption of the trial. M. Ilya Braude, who was defending counsel at many Soviet trials, said that any bribes that Thornton foolishly gave were for economic information, not for espionage. M. Braude spoke lor forty-five minutes but was generally unconvincing. On the other hand, M. Dalmatovsky, in defending Gregory and Nordwall, immediately made good points. For instance, he said:— “ Lobanov, Oleinik and Thornton gave evidence against Nordwall, but the Prosecutor called them abject, immoral types, so their evidence is discredited as worthless. ’’ He demanded Nordwall’s acquittal. M. Dalmatovskv’s plea, emphasising Nord wall’s attachment to his Russian wife, his family life and also his pro-Bolshevist sympathies, strengthened Nord wall’s prospects. . Unnecessary- to Plead. Counsel decided it was unnecessary to plead for Gregory, whose release was regarded as certain. Cushny’s counsel, M. Lidov, declared that there were insufficient documents to incriminate the prisoner. Moreover, the charges were based partly on a breakdown at Baku in 1928, concerning which testimony was only now forthcoming. Cushny was alleged to be guilty of bribery because he lent small sums to workers, who sometimes failed to repay them. Cushny received political and economic and not military information. He was interested in everything Russian, but not from a spy’s viewpoint. “ Not the Central Figure.” M. Kodomov, in defending Monkhoust, opened unconvincingly, like M. Braude, causing a frown on Monkhouse’s lined, careworn face, and an expression of profound pessimism. M. Kodomov said that, though long residence in Russia formed a bond between Thornton and Monkhouse. the evidence showed that Thornton did not tell Monkhouse all about his activities. Monkhouse could not have been the central figure of the group, as the prosecution alleged, because Solokov and Macdonald did not name him, though they implicated Thornton. M. Kodcmov pleaded that the judges should not confuse Monkhouse with Thornton, who, himself clearly the central figure, had attempted to implicate Monkhouse. M. Kodomov's omission to ask the judges to acquit Monkhouse, and his failure to mention Monkhouse’s sensational charge that the trial was a frameup. caused surprise. M. Kazachiev. on behalf of Guesev, Sokolov and Oleinik, threw the blame on the Britons in order to exculpate his own clients. He said it was funny that Monkhouse and Thornton should be regarded as heroes abroad, when they had committed crimes for which they would not be worshipped at home. M. Smirnoff, Macdonald’s counsel, speaking calmly, impressed even the judges, and obviously roused his client’s drooping spirits. He rebutted M. Kazachiev’s assertions that the Britons were responsible for the Russians’ guilt. He said : “ Macdonald is an underling who cannot be classed with Monkhouse and Thornton. He admitted a serious crime, but pledged himself never to repeat it.” Prisoners Address Court. At the conclusion of counsel’s speeches, the prisoners were permitted to address the court. Cushny said:—“My counsel has torn to shreds the accusations against me. Whatever the verdict, I shall leave the court an honest man.” Macdonald, speaking in a dull monotone, said: “ I’ve acknowledged my guilt. I have nothing to add.” Nordwall said: ‘‘lt is painful to hear the remarks of the Prosecutor (M. Vyshinsky). I always did my work honestly and did all I could to help the Soviet. The O.G.P.U. treated me fairly. The trial has been most unfair.

I am not guilty, and I remain a friend of the Soviet Union.” Thornton said: “ I pleaded not guilty at the beginning of the trial, and still do. The evidence against me is unreliable, that's all.” Monkhouse’s Statement. Monkhouse said: “I am absolutely innocent. I am certain that Thornton did not voluntarily sign a confession implicating me of spying. I don’t believe the documents would hold good in any court abroad. Regarding wrecking, I never knew a mother to plunge a dagger in the heart of her child. I have never bribed, and never will. The O.G.P.U. found no bribe in the firm’s books.” Gregory declared his innocence, and all the Russians, including Mme. Kutusova and Sokmlov. pleaded guilty. THORNTON’S MESSAGE. Severest Punishment Anticipated. LONDON. April 18. Thornton's wife has received through the Foreign Office her husband’s personal cryptic message warning her “ not to be shocked ” at the result of the trial. The message added: “I have little doubt that my punishment wiU be severest of all the Englishmen.” He asks his wife to be brave, but says that he cannot stand the agony of waiting for sentence much longer. SCHEME TO REPUDIATE. LONDON, April 18. The “Morning Post” says: “The Soviet’s wanton outrage of our subjects could only have been devised with one object, namely, in order to pick a quarrel and use it as an excuse to repudiate inconvenient debts. Under the export guarantee system, we incurred a liability of £7,000.000 in order to encourage Anglo-Russian trade. This is likely to become a bad debt. It will, however, be some compensation to know that it ends the arrangement to use British money credit to bolster up and strengthen an avowed enemy.” REPORTS IGNORED. LONDON, April 17. The Riga correspondent of “ The Times” emphasises that the Prosecutor, M. Vishinsky, completely ignored the reports of the Soviet’s own investigating commissions that the breakdowns in Moscow’, Ivanozo, Zlatoust, Chelyabinsk and other electrical stations were due to mismanagement, bad transport and the scarcity of skilled labour, which constantly caused serious damage at the Moscow stations. The correspondent adds that none of the Soviet’s reports mentions the foreign engineers or wilful wrecking as the cause of the damage.