"STOPPED ON THE WHARF"

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 38, 13 August 1920, Page 8

"STOPPED ON THE WHARF"

On the evening of Thursday, sth inst. , the Customs officials on- duty, at the Taranaki-street wharf stopped a man named Stanton Harlow as he was leaving the steamer Marama. which had arrived from San Francisco that morning, for the purpose of examining the contents of a bag he was carrying. Harlow raised no objection to a. preliminary examination of the bag, but when the official said that he would have to detain the 'bag until: the Collector of Customs had examined the contents Harlow protested that the slik blouses and stockings in the case had been purchased by him in Wellington in his business as a. hawker, and that he had visited the ship for the purpose of seeing friends. Harlow then took forcible possession of the goods, according to one of the officials, and left the wharf. He was followed and given into custody at the Taranaki-street "Police Station. There he was charged with having obstructed a Customs official, and the case against him was mentioned at the Majjwiraie's Court on the following day. An adjournment for one week was pantedl in order that inquiries might &£ made as to the bona fides of Harlpw's statement, and this morning Mr. K. E. Brabazon, Collector of Customs, slated that the inquiries had shown that, the articles were j.'drchased locally. No charge regarding the smuggling of goods would therefore be laid against the, man, but the charge of obstructing the 'officer would be proceeded with. Harlow denied'that he had taken the ba-g forcibly; he had suggested that the matter should be settled at the police station, and the officer, Harry B. Peers, had accompanied him to the station. Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, for the defence, held that Harlow had acted in a 'thoroughly reasonable manner, and that there had been no obstruction. Messrs. J. W. Ellison and M. C. O'Connell, J.P.s, said that they were satisfied that there had been some obstruction, but the matter was trifling and did not warrant the imposition of the minimum fine, which was fixed by law at i! 5, and they would therefore dismiss the information.