“LAXITY SOMEWHERE"

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 165, 24 April 1928, Page 4

“LAXITY SOMEWHERE "

CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND LIQUOR COMMENT IN A THEFT CASE. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, April 23. “There has been grave laxity on the •part of consignees and' insurance agents; they don’t seem to care what has been going on,” said Mr Allan Moody in the Police Court when further revelations were made concerning the handling of liquor on the waterfront.

The statement was made by Mr Moody in the course of his defence of William George Franklin, receiving agent, agerl 51, who was charged on 13 counts with stealing or receiving liquor in the Customs examination shed. The offences were alleged to have been committed in March and April. ’ The charge of stealing case oil was dismissed. The other charges of stealing and receiving liquor were withdrawn. One of the charges dismissed related to three bottles of liquor which had been ordered to be destroyed by Customs officers, but came into accused’s posession. “That just shows the lack of control on the wharves,” said Chief Detective Hammond. Continuing, the Chief Detective said he did not wish to make more exposure or give more publicity to the case than was necessary. There was laxity among Customs officers, receiving agents, and importers. Losseswere all borne by the exporters or insurance companies. “Franklin was a receiving agent and ho evidently helped himself,” added, the Chief Detective. • “It is a pernicious system and the police, having . complaints, must bring the matter before the Courts.”

Mr Moody said Franklin was a wellknown receiving agent and had been in business for 30 years. Some blame was certainly attachable to the consignees, who had evidently winked an eye at what had been going on. Mr Moody went on to say that it was the practice for receiving agents to draw off samples of bulk whisky. Tiie Magistrate: How has that practice grown up? Mr Fawcett, solicitor, an ex-Customs officer, explained that this drawing off of samples was allowed/ in Customs regulations. Evidence was then given by/ Customs officers who had issued a certificate of bieakages. In one consignment of liquor the issuer of the certificate said there were 42 “breaks.” The Chief Detective: Do you know how two of the bottles you. certified as “breaks” are here to-day? Witness: I don’t know. Mr Hammond: And you don’t care. George Henry Carnes, Customs officer, said the explanation was that Customs officers were “hoodwinked.” “The liquor is brought from , the ships to ■ the sheds,” he added, “and the merchant or his agent has possession of it. The Customs control is only on paper.” The Magistrate said he was satisfied there had been obvious laxity somewhere, but accused could not be treated as a thief. He *would be convicted on the charges to which he pleaded guilty. Franklin and,Robert Edward Cooper,, who was convicted last Friday, were each fined £2Ol