TAR FOR LOCAL BODIES

Evening Star, Issue 15817, 31 May 1915, Page 1

TAR FOR LOCAL BODIES

THE ALEXANDRA (WSj-l. Judgment in the rase of Howies v. Fleming, which was heard in the City Police Court on the 14th inst., was delivered this morning by .Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. This wis a case- in which Moslvu A. Fleming. Town Clerk of Alexandra, 'was charged with unlawfully causing the City Clmnci! of Dunedin to make a." fal.se statement as to tho nature of certain goods— to wit. 20 barrels of tar—delivered on the New Zealand Railways on a consignment note. Th<j points th.it had been raised by defendant's counsel (.Mr Adams) were that his client was entirely innocent of any intentional or moral wrong; that the- "nature of the goods had not been misstated; U , M | t | la t the school's committee, for whom portion of the consignment was intended.'was a local body within the meaning of the Art. Further, that if the Court thought that an offence had been committer!, tie- complaint might he dismissed under the Justices of the Peace Act. In giving judgment, His Worship said, in effect, that he could not agree with Mr Adams's contention that a school committee, was * local body in the sense used throughout the regulations: neither could he agree in the point raised that the nature "of the goods meant the inherent quality of sucii goods. In regard to the contention that as tho statement had been made honestly and in good faith there had been an" absense of mens rea. and consequently no offence, His Worship ruled that the revenue statutes are for the protection of the revenue, and if tho effect of a prohibited act is injurious to th» revrnue'the fact that it was done by mistake or accident is immaterial. In any case, he did not think absence of mens rea. had been proved in this instance. There was no question of defendant's honesty of purpose, but, said His Worship, could it be said that, in the case of a man of affairs, he acted reasonably in directing a statement to be made on the authority of a tariff, dated 1904' He thought that—in law—defendant must be said to have acted negligently in not faking steps to inform himself of the current tariff. With regard to the. penalty, it had been submitted that as the defendant had acted quite honestly, and as the extra freight had been paid, tfie case should be dismissed under section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. His Worship said he was unable to so deal with a breach of the statute affecting the public revenue. In view of the circumstances, however, he would impose, u. small penalty. Defendant would be fined 10s and costs (£1 3ai.