RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3168, 24 August 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24,

(Before H. Eyre Kenny, Esq., R.M.) POLONY. F. D. Rend'e was charged on the information of J. Grubb, tbe Chief Postmaster, with stealing money to the amount of _s from Her Majesty's mail. At the request of the police tbe case was remanded until Monday next, at 10.30. OFFENCE UNDER THE " BEER DUTY ACT." Joseph Kuntze waa charged with neglecting to affix and cancel a duty stamp to a cask ot beer. Mr Patten, Commissioner of Customs, appeared to conduct the prosecution, and Mr Lee appeared tor the defence. Mr Patten drew the attention of the Court to tbe 16th section of the Act, which sets forth that if a stamp is not affixed to a cask of beer the duty upon it has not been paid, nnd to section 48, which throws the onus of proof on the defendant. Mr Patten was then sworn, and stated that it was his duty to see that the provisions of the Beer Duty Act were carried out. He produced the license book, showing that defendant was a licensed brewer under the Act. Since the passing of the Act he had frequently cautioned tbe brewers that tbe provisions of it would be strictly eDforced. From information he received some weeks ago he gave notice in writing to each brewer, toe defendant included, that the provisions of the Act would be strictly enforced. On the 19th instant he received a telegram from Constable Pickering informing him of the barrel of beer at the Farndon station. Constable Pickering said it was his duty to see that casks of beer were duly stamped before leaving the brewery. He was at Farndon station on the 19th instant. He saw the cask now in Court on the platform of the Farndon station. There was no duty stamp on it. He was sure it was beer. It was leaking at the bung-hole, and he could smell that it was beer. He seized the cask. The cask waa addressen to Mr Sneiling at Hastings. Defendant's name was printed on the label affixed to the cask. Cross-examined by Mr Lee: The porter was rolling the cask along the platform when he first saw it. Nobody called his attention to it. The had no conversation with the station-master about the cask. He asked the stationmaster to examine the cask with him, and they rolled it into the office. George Pritchard, station-master, on his oath, said he was on duty on the 19th instant. The cask of beer was brought to the station by George Gifford, drayman to defendant. The signature to the bill of consignment is that of defendant. The cask was delivered at the station at 10.20, and would have been forwarded by the 11.50 train. He was distributor of beer duty stamps. Tbe defendant's drayman applied for a quantity of stamps on tbat day. He did not give the stamps. The draymen had not the cash to pay for them. He sold him some stamps after the caßk had been seized. The drayman presented the requisition for stampsbefore he presented the consignment note. After he was refused the stamps he presented the consignment note. He examined the cask with Constable Pickeriug, and found no Btamp on it. If the cask had not been seized it would have gone by tbe next train in the ordinary course of business. Cross-examined by Mr Lee: The reason the drayman did not get the stamps was that he brought a cheque for £5, and he (witness) had no change. Tbe stamps requisitioned for amounted to £l 4s. The duty stamp for 36 gallons would be 9s. He told the drayman to get a smaller cheque, or to get the one he had changed. He frequently took cheques for stamps, but he told the drayman that he could not take that cheque. He was paid for the stamps received afterwards by a cheque for £3, and he gave the change out of it. The beer was on the cart when the requisition for stamps was first presented. The beer had been seized when the drayman came for the stamps a second time. Mr Lee pointed out that Mr Patten had not proved his status in Court. The Act provided that the Commissioner might make districts, but there was no evidence of the districts having been made, or of collectors having been appointed. Mr Patten put in the Gazette making the district of Napier to include the Borough of Napier, and the Counties of Hawke's Bay, Wairoa, and Waipawa.

After hearing evidence for tbe defence, His Worship said there had been a breach of the law, although it was evident there was no intention to defraud the revenue. The penalty would be tbe lowest allowed by law, namely, £20, but if the facts of the case were represented to the Minister of Justice there would no doubt be a remission of the fine.