ALLEGED CUSTOMS EVASION.

Evening Post, Volume LXVII, Issue 23, 28 January 1904, Page 6

ALLEGED CUSTOMS EVASION.

T^his morning the Collector of Customs proceeded again.st S. M. Clink, assistant pitiher on tho Union Company's s.s. •Manuka, on three- counts in connection with the alleged smuggling, of a lady's costume. The counts m ere : (1) That defendant waa knowingly concerned in a uawdulent attempt at CuMomh evasion; {&) did knowingly harbour uncustomed goods j (3) did unship goods on which «uty had nob been paid. The evidonco of Mr, Maddcvn, Customs oilicer, was that ho &aw defendant coming from the Manuka with a parcel and going in tho diiection of a part of the wharf where the wharf offices of tho Customs and tho Union Company wero situated. The parcel was addressed to Mr. U. H. Morgan, caro of Union S.S. , Company, New Plymouth, New Zealand. ! Defendant said he was taking the parcel to the company's office, and did not know j what wa« in it. In reply to Mr. Wilford, for defendant, witness said ho was not ] aware of tl terms of a bond between the Union Company and the Customs allowing the company to unship goods, and afterwards to settle with tho Customs , as to what was dutiable. In openiug the defence, Mr. Wilford ' «ud the penalty tho Union Company im« ] posed on officers detected in smuggling was in«tant dismissal^ Mr. Morgan was tho company's manager at New Plymouth, and tho costume was put aboard ■t Melbourne, along with (tome letters «nd papers from tho company's Melbourno office. Managers of tho different branches wero allowed by the company to havo email paixt'ls brought over free of freight ; that was why this parcel was not in tho manifest. Mr. Gillon, purser of tho Manuka, deposed that goods, even when not on the manifest, were often unshipped and duty paid afterwards. Op the piescnt occasion, witness instructed defendant to take the parcel to the landing waiter. Thero wero always ft lot of parcels that came to steamers for delivery at other ports "per kind favour" of somo one or other —they could fill tho ship with such gratuitous parccla. In .such cases, the parcel generally went in tho manifest, and freight was collected at the other ond, and duty paid. In this case, tho parcel was for tho wifo of tho New Plymouth manager, and he dift not think defendant knew its contents^ Defendant deposed that lie could nob Bud tho landing waiter, and therefore told Maddem he- ivas taking the parcel to tho Customs (not the company's) office. Witness left the. parcel in charge of Muddcrn", who aaid ho would havo to detain it till Monday. - His Worship asked what would bo gained by patting tho pnrcel into tho company's office. Mr. Myers (for the Maiino Department) contended that, from the office, tho parcol could easily havo been put on the New Plymouth boat without payment „f duty. His Worship asked "whether duty would not in that case bo paid at N*w Plymouth. Mr. Myers : Thcr& is no evidence of that. His Worship dismissed the first two counts on tho ground that thoro was no evidence that defendant was " knowingly" concerned. As to the unshipping, defendant was acting under the commands of his superior offlcor. Mr. Myers : T» tm>t a defence? His Worship said he did not think the Supremo Court would in the circumstances convict. All the charges would be dismissed ; ho did not think there had been any attempt to smuggle. No cosls would bo allowed.