CUSTOMS CASES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 89, 21 May 1914, Page 10

CUSTOMS CASES.

ANOTHER ALLEGED FRAUD.

A NEW POINT RAISED. y- ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY. In the Supreme Court this morning, "before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston, •a ?oung man, James Edward Rundle, Anas arraigned on three charges of complicity in frauds on the Customs Department between. September, 1911, September, 1913. Tha .accused had been a Handing waiter at Lyttelton, and it was ; alleged against him that he had fraudulently passed falsified entry forms with Tegard to tobacco being removed from bond by an employee of the importing firm„ Barlow Bros. The alleged defalcations totalled over £IOO. The prosecution w'as conducted by Mr P. S. K. Macassey, with whom was Mr ,A. F. Wright (representing the Customs Department). The accused was represented by Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr G. Harper. • THE CASE OUTLINED. Mr Macassey, in opening the case, . spoke at considerable length. He said that the accused .had a long record of -service in the Customs Department. For some time he had been in the respon,sible position of landing waiter at Lyttelton, and he had always been regarded ' by the Department as a smart, keen, and alert oflieer. The charges against him arose out of the importation of tobacco by the firm of Barlow, Bros., recently trading in Christchurch. Barlow Bros, imported tobacco from the British Empire Trading Co., of Melbourne, which had a branch in Wellington. -When to- -' baceo was shipped to Lyttelton by the Melbourne house", a full specification of . the shipment was sent both to Barlow "Bros, and to the Wellington branch of the exporting firm. The Wellington branch then sent an invoice to Barlow '.Bros., giving all details of the shipment —mark's,- weight, price, etc. It was theu • the duty of Barlow Bros.' Customs clerk to make-out a prime entry from the invoice. In this case the Customs clerk*was a young man, Norman Barlow, who was not now in the country. The tobacco, when landed, would- be put into bond, and would be beared as required by the « importers. ' ~ LANDING WAITER'S DUTY. , s-. Counsel then described the process ne- '- -cessary to' the. clearing of the goods, and , -emphasised the fact that it,was the duty 'f ~rof the landing waiter to compare the in- ; voices with'the prime entry. In this Rundle was the landing waiter cerned, •an f1 Norman, Bar! ow was the ; - Customs clerk who had made out the v prime entry from the original invoice. !'* This prime entry-would.show how many -eaises of plug tobacco and' how many of . : cut or tin tobacco were needed. Before •he could issue a ' 'may go'' certificate, ..enabling the caees to be taken out of bond, Rundle would have; to examine .' the case 3 and stamp them with the Customs stamp which was in his Care, The -stamping of the cases and the issue of the "may go" were supposed to show that Rundle had examined the cases, the T. invoice, ami the prime entry, and had found -everything correct. In -two * of the three charges against Rundle, the payment of duty had been evaded "through the declaration of plug tobacco as cut tobacco. It would be impossible for an officer who con/'•Beientiousjy inspected the cases to make ~a mistake as between cut and plug. In the third case, the alleged fraud was 'Carried out through a false entry as to

7 the weight of the,, goods. If the cases, , had been properly weighed in the presence of the landing-waiter, he could ' not ha ye made any mistake. '■■<■ , - ' THE GHAEGES. __ . Counsel went on to give details of the mm^ n yariou3 charges... Concerned in the first .'-" were threprcases of tobacco, and' .-, . two of cut. of plug-usually contained cigtit boxes, and weighed from ' 170 to 172 lbs. Cases of cut tobacco contained twenty boxes, each containing olbs, so that, the total weight of the case was lOOlbs. Occasionally there w.ere cases weighing 1501bs or v 2001bs.v In this case the plug tobacco weighed Sltilbs, and the cut tobacco 2001bs, a total weight of 7161b5. This weight was got out in the invoice, but when the prime entry was made out by Barlow, he had entered all five cases as cut £ tobacco, and declared the fo'tal weight "[ to be SOOlbs. The invoice woilld show the correct weight, and would set out that three of the cases contained plug tobacco. Had the landing : waiter compared the two documents he must have noticed the discrepancy. The correct duty for the tobacco actually received iy Barlow was £125 6/-, for which he drew a cheque, which he cashed. The amount of duty he actually paid, however, was only that on 5001bs of tobacco £B7 10/-). There, was therefore-a deficiency of £3B 16/-. So far as the Grown was concerned, they had.no evidence to show that the accused had actually received any of the money of which the Department had been defrauded. What would be proved was that Barlow had committed, the thefts, ' - . and that the accused had assisted him * by passing his false entries; thus becom- . ing a conspirator. , • In the second case, Mr Macassey continued, delivery had been £iken of four <>ases of plug tobacco, ajrid one of cut, ' a total weight of 8421b5, of-which' 6921bs were plug and 150 cut. The cases were all described in the prime entry as cut, and duty was paid as for'SOOlbs,-leavi inij a def'uMPn<'y of :>l2lbs. of duty which should have been paid was £147 7/-. There was actuallv paid £B7 10/-, leaving a deficiency of £59 7/-. In the third-case, there were two cases 3 of cut tobacco, one of which weighed >: " 2001bs and one lOOlbs. They were both entered as weighing lOOlbs, so that

there was a deficiency of lOOlbs in weight, and £l7 10/- in duty* ORIGINAL INVOICES LOST.

The first witness was Frank Larway, employed by the British Empire Trading Company at Wellington, who produced copies' of invoices regarding shipments of tobacco to Barlow Bros.

Miss E. M'Rae, accountant, employed by Barlow Bros, Christchurch, said that she had made a search for the original invoices for all shipments of tobacco to Barlow Bros, by the British Empire Trading Company, of-.Melbourne, between September 15, 1911, and September 8, 1913. She had been unable to find them, and could not say what had become of them.

WHY WERE THEY DESTROYED? Mr Raymond said that the question of the admissibility of the copies of the invoices had not been settled. The invoices came from Melbourne. His Honour: And in due course must have been here.

Mr Raymond said that all that was being established by his friend was that the invoices had been got rid of, but there was nothing to connect the accused with their disappearance. Even if it were assumed that the original invoices had come to Norman Barlow, there was nothing to show that these were the invoices which had been produced bv Barlow to the accused.

His Honour said that it had been in the interest of Norman Barlow to destroy the invoices, and possibly in the interest of Barlow Bros.

Mr Raymond: Why so, your Honour? His Honour: Because of the possibility of civil liability. He went on to say that the question was whether the court could assume that the accused had seen the original document. POSSIBILITY OF FORGERY. Mr Raymond said that it was established that Norman Barlow had gone to Rundle with a false prime entry, but if he did so it was reasonable to assume that he artso took a "faked" invoice to support this prime entry. If that were the case it disposed of the whole thing. His Honour: Not at all. There is the question of examination., Mr Raymond: That is another thing. It is not a necessary inference that the original entry was submitted. His Honour: You mean that a false invoice altogether was submitted! Mr Raymond: Or some other invoice. His Honour: The presumption is that if thd invoices were destroyed no one could be convicted. Mr Raymond pointed out that in the previous "cases before the Court the original invoices had been produced, bearing the signature of the Customs officers, showing that they had been examined. In these cases the originals were not produced. His Honour: They have been destroyed. Mr Raymond: I admit they have been destroyed. His Honour: For fraudulent purposes, either criminal or civil. Mr Raymond: I will admit that, for the sake of argument. Norman Barlow had admitted his theft. J3e could liave gone forward with a faked invoice. There was no evidence to the. contrary. . COUNSEL'S OBJECTION NOTED. - Mr Macassey: We must prove that the original invoices were sent forward, your Honour! ; His Honour: At present we must assume that the invoices received were .presented to Rundle; Mr Macassey: No other invoices were ,ever sent forward. His Honour: The question is whether L Barlow did not have blank forms, and could not have forged the invoices. Mr Macassey: The invoices sent for!,ward to Barlow Bros, had the British Empire Trading Company's heading on them. His Honour: The point is essential to

your - case, Mr Macassey. You must >ihow that the same invoices were presented to Bundle,, as were sent forward. At present he would admit evidence as to the invoices, but be would reserve the point raised by Mr Baymorid. He was not prepared to rule definitely ,at present. ' • ';:>'- : '".'' Mr Baymond r asked his Honour to direct that there was no case to go to the jury. .. Mr That application is rather premature. His Honour said tbat the case had better go on. He had taken a note of Mr Baymond's point, and the accused could lose nothing. Mr Macassey therefore recalled Frank Larway, who. gave evidence as to the firm's practice in forwarding invoices. The copies he produced were on plain paper, but the invoices forwarded from Wellington had the firm's heading. When the court resumed after luncheon, evidence was given by Customs officers of the method of releasing tobacco from bond, and of the duties of a landing waiter. The system of examination was so thorough that it would be impossible for a careful officer to mistake a' case of plug tobacco for cut, or vice versa. ; (Proceeding.)