Coll 29/60 'Kermanshah: claim of Reuben Lalezar against British consul in respect of fines imposed in 1919' [‎139r] (280/316)

*1
Enclosure iio. 2 In Taiwan despatch Mo.391-^ated ■'the
/Li •
£6th July, 1931.
. ^ !
^ . ! /
’• • •* ■) .
British Consulate*
Kermanshah,
October 5th*1928
Sir*
With reference to your despatch Ho. 44 of September 14th I
have the honour to inform you that in the spring of 1919 Reuben
Lalezar, through his agent at Qasr-i-Rhirin, Herun Casri, seized
86 donkeys which were under contract to carry petrol for the
British troops* and had them loaded with his ovm goods* On arrival
at Kerend the contractor reported the matter to his superior
offlcei’ there, and the loads were stopped until a t fine of iir&ne 50
per load, in all &rano 4*3000, was paid* I am not quite clear who
gave the order for the fine, but it was paid to Major Weir, then
His ila4esty , s Consul here*
X understand that lalezar clrdrae not only a refund of the fine
but compensation for Iocs of profit owing to a fall in the price
of Sugar* Moreover he states that it was not he who seized the
transport, but his agent Harun.
, 1 o this Major Weir replied that Lalezar hoped to make his
extra profit by seizing transport under contract, while more honest
merchants were looking for animals which were not engaged* As
regards the responsibility of Harun* if I.alezar'o statement was
correct* his remedy lay against him. In the circumstances Major
Uoir refused to consider L&lezar’s claim, and his successor Major
F•S•Greenhouse did likewise*
Myown opinion is that the fine wan justified and it certainly
acted as a deterrent, as I have found no trace of any similar
cases. Had punishment been foregone in this instance, there is no
doubt that other merchants would have followed Lalezar’s example,
and transport conditions would have
Raymond rarr Esq*,
Charged’ Affaires,
Tehran*
become impossible for our
troope