PIPE AND OPIUM

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXV, Issue 12304, 19 April 1937, Page 2

PIPE AND OPIUM

APPEAL HV CHINESE An interesting ease involving an interpretation of “possess!im” under the Dangerous Drugs Act was beard in the Supreme Court at Auckland before Air Justice Calhm. when a Chinese appealed against a conviction at Tauranga. on February 3. of being in possession of prepared opium and an opium pipe. The appellant, Dong Vvai, was represented by Mr Dickson. Mr V. R. Aieiedith appeared for the Crown. Dong AA'al had been convicted and fined £25 on each charge. The evidence of the police showed that Dong AVai’s house was searched. and a vase and a stem fitting it and opium were discovered. Dong AVai was arrested, and the police stated that his eyes were staring, and that when taken to the cells he was “dopey” and sagged at the knees. The evidence showed that the appellant, prior to his arrest, had complained to a police constable that another Chinese, Ah Dong, who had boarded with him, was in the habit of smoking opium. The appellant alleged that the opium and pipe were the property of that Chinese. The question for his Honor to decide, provided he was satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, was whether or not the householder was in possession of a pipe and opium which had been left by another person, but with the knowledge of the owner of the house. It was common ground between counsel that once it was held that Urn opium was in the possession of any person no explanation of any kind would exculpate him, as the section of the Act made tin absolute prohibition against the possession of opium. Mr Dickson suggested that the question to be considered was animus possidendi. Did the householder have the desire of retaining or obtaining possession? . His Honor reserved his decision.