ALLEGED CUSTOMS FRAUDS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 105, 5 May 1915, Page 11

ALLEGED CUSTOMS FRAUDS

THIRD TRIAL OF M'KINNON. (HI TELEGRAPH— PRBSS ASSOCIATION.) CHRISTCHURCH, 4th May. Afc the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Sim and a common jury, the third trial of John Alexander M'Kinnon on several charges of theft in connection with .the Customs Department was opened. Mr. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr. A. F. Wright, appeared for tho Crown, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. \V. J. Tlunter. for accused. Three charges (two charging accused with theft from the New ZeaJand Express Company and the other with theft from J. M. Hey wood) were taken, and' Mr. Wright said the. evidence led chiefly on the same lines as the previous trials. , New- evidence by George Pollen JPrit-' chard, examining officer, Customs Department) Whangarei, and Francis C. J. Fantham, landing waiter, Christchurch, and Walter B. B. Olliver, landing waiter, Auckland, dealt chiefly with the methods in the Customs Department connected wit.b the taking of prime entries. Pritchard, tinder ' cross-examination, stated the Department , issxied a circular informing officers that they must discontintie tho practice of entries being taken indiscriminately by landing waiters. Hugh Sherwood Cordery, examining officer in Christchurch, stated he had been examining the frauds from the date of the arrests up to the day before beginning the third trial, and had discovered 367 separate cases of fraud, extending over a period between January,, 1910, and December, 1913. He had examined between 90,000 and 100,000 prime entries, but the records did not go further back than January, 1910, and at that time tho frauds were in full swing. A few documents of July; 1910, liad been retained. These he had checked, but the evidence was fragmentary. At this stage it was decided to take advantage of the condensation of evidence arranged by contending counsel. This consisted of tabulated information regarding 63 cases of alleged fraud, the total deficiency in. the amount of the duty being £2231 0s 4d. The witness Cordery stated that in any of these cases any landing waiter would have noticed the discrepancy between invoice and prime entry. Mr. Raymond was calling witnesses in special and individual cases when the Court adjourned till to-morrow-