Mysterious Identity of Polish Representative in Harbin: Russian Accused Discharged Lensky, V. A. Razoviteh and G. 8. Koloroff, of 3010 East. Seward Road, were charged on remand at the Mixed Court on Thurs-cay with forging a Polish passport und the private seal of the Polish Consulate in Harbin, Mr, E, T, Maitland appeared for the police; Mr, A. Fishman and Mr. NA. Ivanow for defendants, Plain-clothes Constable Benenin aid that on receipt of information obtained he arrested the accused. The first oman had original passport in his possession, and the second one had two forged documents, The first accused said that the others had stolen hi passport to make a copy, but admitted having written something on the forged document, but this was Yefore the stamp was copied. The forgery had been done with oil paper. The third accused did not. take part.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fishman, witness was asked how he knew the original passport. was issued by the Polish Consul at Harbin, and replied that it was not issued by 8 Consul but by a repatriation de-Tegate, Witness said the seal was one of a delegate, not a Consulate.
Counsel then put. it to witness! that nobody could be produced to show that the delegate really existed, Witness replied that the first accused had admitted that his original document had been issued, the Polish Delegate in Harbin, An examination of the document, the Court showed that the Japanese Consular authorities in Tientsin had identified the paper, but the Chinese authorities did not recognize it, Mr, Maitland stated tha: there wax nobody to prove the exixcence the delegate.
Mr, Fishman submitted that the part of the charge relating to the forgery of the seal should be with drawn, "The charge sheet rnentions a passport," continued counsel, "pat it has been proved that the paper was a certificate and not a passport. The contents state that, Lensky applied for a passport only. 'The contents of the forgery differ' Irom those of the original in, the possession of the first accused."
Continuing, counsel submitted that nobody had proved the existence of the delegate or that he had the right to use the seal, and further that he was an authorized person, Further, there is no proof that the signature of the delegate wai Possible some person in functioning as the proof to show accredited representative, te this, continued counsel, Chin had no treaty with Poland. Coun-el submitted that there were 80 charge that: the Court must st dismiss it, Concluding, Mr. Fishman said that there Was no complainant and the person named in the charge sheet had not been proved to exist, The Assessor, after consulting with the Magistrate, said that there was nothing to show that the doc~ ment in possession of the first a used was a public document or that the seal on it was a public seal. If the delegate had appeared as complainant, the Court would have accepted the seal as a public one, but. the Court had no proof without the delegate's word, and the delegate, fad not appeared as complainant. Therefore the charge would fall through, As to whether it was a private document, no private party Yaving appeared as complainant, the only thing the Court could dow to dismiss the case, The accused were then discharged.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.