Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16558, 23 May 1914, Page 14

ACCUSED IN THE BOX. James Edward Bundle said that he en.me to Christchurch in December, 1911, having had five months’ experience as assistant landing waiter on the wharves in Wellington. He joined the service on April 1, 1904, and he came to Christchurch as landing waiter; when Hill moved out. .M’Kinnon was landing waiter then and Campbell was iri Wellington at the time. At the Intercolonial office in the A shed all intercolonial, coastal, Vancouver, San Francisco, timber and coal boats were squared up. Prior to his arrival there were two landing waiters. Hill, who was going to Lyttelton, and M’Kinnon. Witness took over the work that Hill had not squared tip and carried on the work allotted to him in tho office at the same time. He had no reason to doubt the integrity of either Hill or M’Kinnon. OVER WORK SUGGESTED.

That carried witness on to February, 1912, and in that mouth'M’Kinnon resigned, and at the request of tho landing surveyor again he took up M’Kinnoa’s back work and for four or five months carried on all tho work of tho office singlehanded. On several occasions ho complained to the surveyor about the amount of work he was asked to do, but was told to “ hang on ” because a man would soon bo-coming from AA'ellington to replace M’Kinnon. _ Ultimately Wallace arrived, but did not assist him until some time later. Tho busy days in the offieo wero Thursday, Friday and Saturday in each week. Cargo was unloaded from trucks on to the floor of the shed, the high duty goods being placed in tlio bond, an unenclosed! portion of the shed, which was stacked with tobacco going coastwise, as well as intercolonial. LAX METHODS NECESSARY.

Norman Barlow was introduced to him by M’Kinnon when he introduced other clerks and agents frequenting tho shed. He had no reason to doubt Barlow’s integrity. Tho witness then gave tbo procedure to be followed in passing plug tobacco and cut tobacco through the Customs. In the nine cases mentioned against him all the primo entries on the face of them were for cut tobacco and tho goods would not be weighted. As a general rule in the office the stamping was done by the importers themselves. There were three tobacco stamps in the office. He was alone in the office. Campbell was in another office in tho shod. If the importer stamped tho tobacco witness would not see the goods unless ho made a. special effort. The size of the cases would convey nothing unless he went out specifically to examine them. The comparison certificate was put on wifn a rubber stamp and Hie wording “stamped, J. Bundle” was necessary to make the prime entries complete. When lie was going through tho entries to complete a boat’s transactions he would notice that; “ stamped ” was not on it, and be would put it on: He marked tho forms “stamped” whether lie had actually performed the stamping or not. The comparison certificate stamp was in many eases put on the prime entry when the invoice did not agree with it.

His Honor: Then it is not true? Witness: No. His Honor: And these are the checks that a landing waiter is supposed to observe. Proceeding, Bundle stated that tho use of the comparison stamp in that loose way was rendered necessary by tho rush of work on tho busy days, tho entries being completed after the closing of the office, before tho opening on the following day, or when a boat was being “ squared up.” Mr Raymond : Could this be obviated by better staffing? Witness: It could. On tho busy days it would have been impossible to put through nil the intercolonial invoices properly end carry out the regulations at tho same time.

HILL ACCUSED

Going through tho documents in detail Blind le said that tho prime entry dated April 20, 1912, came in. on a Friday (ho hacl looked at calendars). Assuming that the invoice did not correspond with the prime entry or with tho’ goods, there were sovoral explanations why ho would pass • the gqodß through. In most cases ho examined tho invoices. There might havo been a false invoice, r, false specification, and the fact that bo had to and did trust to tho integrity of his fellowofficers. By that he meant that Hill, stationed at Lyttelton, often went to Hie railway sheds before eight o’clock in tho morning. Hill would have his fellow-conspirators, and he would transact business with them. Hill would pass entries, and in most cases givo “ may-go’s ” for goods which had been

incorrectly passed before the arrival at tlio office of the landing waiter' for that ship. His Honor: How far might it bo supposed Hill interfered with this first entry ? AVitness: I would come ip just after the invoice had been presented to Hill by Barlow. Hill would say to me, “ 1 missed my train and came across. I found Barlow waiting to get tobacco through, and I havo just seen tho invoice.” Hill would hand over tho prime entry with the “ may-go ” form, and say, “It’s all right; you just sign the * may-go ’.” That has happened to me, and I have signed the forms. This happened several times. His Honor (to Mr Raymond): Then you suggest that Hill used this man? Mr Raymond: Yes, and wo can show some “may-go’s” bearing Hill’s writinS‘ USE'OF OLD INVOICES.

Tho witness then stated that in respect of the prime entry of March 15, 1912 Hill gave the “may-go.” With regard to tho possibility of a wrong invoice which would lit the prime entry, he had found one which agreed in details with the exception of the date and the name of the ship. Tlio invoice was dated December 27, 1911. The marks corresponded with those in the prime entry of April 26, the number of cases was the same, each form showed 10011> cases in cut tobacco, in 2oz and 4oz tins. Mr Raymond : You say that is a suggested explanation? Witness: Only suggested, sir. Mr Raymond: AY hen did you first hear of a’shortage? Witness: When I was arrested, sir. . . Continuing, he said that the invoice of December 27, 191 R would also fit , the entry of May 25, 1912, m the description of the goods. The prime entry was hand_ed in on a Iridayj but tho li may go" 1 was dated May 24. Ho explained that by saying that Norman'Barlow, after passing his bonded entry, would say: “Look here; I m in a*fix. AVe want the tobacco to complete an order, and if we don’t complete to-day we lose tho sale. My principal is out of town and I can t get a cheque. AATII you pass these on. condition that I pay you the first thing to-morrow?” Witness would let the goods go. That had occurred more than once. He thought other officers did the same thing. AVith reference to the prime entry dated December 6, and tlio Wellington invoices were dated December 7, the only explanation he could offer was that the goods were passed on tho specification. That was often done. ' Dealing with the other six cases, he said that the nrimo entry for March 15 showed Hill’s handwriting m a statement that there were 800 2oz tins. The entries of April 13, June 29 and July 12 showed no comparison stamp. The declaration on tho entry of January 29 was signed by Dunn, but the body of tlio form, was filled by witness. Dunn would have seen the error and filled in the declaration without seeing the invoice. Tlio last one was on a footing similar to those of the first threo charged. At times he bad to collect entries from Campbell’s office. Campbell might have taken entries for witness’s boats during his absence or at Barlow’s request. In squaring up tho boats lie would notice tlio absence of the entries and would go to Campbell and get them. DENIES RECEIVING ANY MONEY.

His Honor: There seemed to have been plenty of checks. Mr Raymond: In theory. His Honor: There was a groat deal of machinery. Tho witness said that he would take the entries from Campbell's office and complete them, as if ho had carried them out himself. He had followed that procedure often. In the condition of the staffing in the office it was necessary, owing to the pressure of work, to trust tho importer’s agents. Mr Raymond: Did von receive any money from Norman Barlow P AVitness: No. sir.

Mr Raymond: Have you participated in any of tho money withheld from tho Customs? AVitness: Not at all, sir. Mr Raymond: Are you a man of means?

Witness: T have only my furniture, CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Mr Wright: Ton were pretty friendly with Norman Barlow? Witness: No, sir, not more than with other agents. Mr Wright: Weren’t you friendly with him outside the office P Witness: No, sir. Referring to the prime entries and the suggestion that Barlow may have asked to have the goods put through to eomplote a purchase for ft customer, Mr Wright suggested to the witness that five or seven cases would not bo necessary for such a purpose. Witness: “I 'wouldn’t think of that at the time.” Later the witness said that the incidents in connection with all the cases quoted by the Crown would happen while he was in the office single-handed. Mr Wright: Then that precludes any other officer having had anything to do with these except Hill. Going on the witness said that he did not suggest that Campbell had been involved with any of the documents forming the subject, of the charges. He suggested that as Hill had been shown to have dealt with one he was involved in others. Mr Wright: Have you asked Hill for an explanation? Witness: I have not been able; I haven’t seen him since his arrest. Mr Wright: Did you ask him if he could nfako a statement on your behalf. Witness: No. His Honor: If you had carried out