LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIV, Issue 4788, 22 March 1877, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT;—ln'.'Banco. \ •■•:.■>-> ' -WiEDNESpAY, j s ' ,! -■-.-• i.,[Before HisHoaorMrJ-JosticoiGillles.] j Tiie.. ordinary'^sitt,ing r : '..'in: ianconwas li'eld this morning, and the following .business disposed of ':—" "■■*'}!'*!£"''!'": s".?, ;! , ■■'*;' j IJIPOBTANT'i CUSTOMS; CASE. ! EICHAItD TL.kthi All (AI>ifELAKX), .THOHAS HILL, ' . n COLLECTOK:;Of CUSTOMS (RESPONDENT).This was an appeal frbm a. decision of \h.& Kb'sident , 'Magistrate, of Auckland": (R, iC. Barstow.,'Esq,)i v ' >■■•■■ <- • '■']'■ ' . V"; '■ '"' Mr. Hesketh Kichmond), appeared : 'for'the' l appella'nt«,General.tiustructjed by Mr. P. ,M.. ; .field), ( , appeared ,ior."the ' respondent— the Custdins.'authoritiesof New Zealand. . The ■ case'i came-before the Cdurt)as by .•the i learhed_Magist'rate, and set' out that' the upon.acomplaint madoby the respondent, in., jthe Resident" .Court, ■ was 'convicted-"or- an otfence against the Customs 'Hegulafions ; -Act ' of' ISSS, 0 "section,; 135.'../.--.The. .appellant was r fined £10.0,T.which; penalty "was - afterwards mitigated to a penalty of £25, or one-fourth, under clause-202-.pE ; .the same Act. The offence disclosed .was, that the-appellant had made a false declaration as "to the jvalu'o" of a caseof goods imported; by him' in the ship City of Auckland, from Xondon to New 'ZealariA .'But the whole of the facts were not" 'set out. It further appeared, that,,.although proceedings were taken under j;he Act'of ISSS, yet the declaration was inade in accordance with the provisions of the Customs' TarilT Act, 15J3.... The, 135 th section of the Customs Regulations Act; ISSB, that if,any -personshall, in any matter relating to'the Customs, make and subscribe any false do-', claration, or make' or sign any deplaration certificate'dr other instrument by this Act,' the same being false in any particular— fit sHall sign any declaration made for the consideratiou of the Commissioner (of Customs), the same being untrue in any particular—ior if l any person shall answer truly any questions put to him by the officers" of the Customs, every person so offending shall for-.: feit the penalty of. £100.' It was held that if the declaration were false in fact,; although without the knowledge of tho'. person making it, the penalty was incurred. By the Gth section of the Customs Tariff Act, 1573, passed upon-the resort to the ad valorem method of collecting duties enacts " That the declaration shall be made by, theimporter or his authorised agent in the presence of the Collector of Customs or other, proper officer," aud the invoice value so declared -shall, with the' additien of ten pounds per centum thereon, be deemed to be the value of the' 'goods on which duty shall be paid;, and anjr person who shall in any such-declaration "make any false statemeut, knowing the same to be-false, shall be guilty of a' misdemeanour, and shall be liable' aud subject to the like penalties as in a case of perjury. Objections were made to any conviction in the Court below, on the , ground that evidence should have been ad--duced iu the; Court below that the declaration was not wilfully false ; but it was held that it, was,sufficient if the declaration was fals'e'in'fact. It"-was. also objected'that as the declaration was in the form provided by the statute (the Customs Tariff Act of 1573), the defendant should have been dealt with under that statuto ', but-it waeheld that the section of tho Customs Regulations Act, ISSS, under which the proceedings were taken,had hot b.jen repealed. It was next objected that the offence charged in the Court below was either criminal or a civil injury, and if a criminal, offence, .then the guilty intent to the act must be proved. Mr. Hesketh, -in-support of the appeal, said the Act of 1873 was in no way incor-porated^'with'-the Customs Regulations Act of 1856. That the 6th and 7th sections of the .Customs Tariff(A:ctyhad! the effect) of repealing the section of the Customs Regulations Act under.whioh the defendant in the Court below (the present appellant) was charged.-,--This.view"of ; thesubject might be obtained change in respect of She subject <pf all sucji declarations, £he mode] of 'declaring, verifying the value of articles imported and liable, to payment of duty. The old form of declaration had. no referense to the value ; of-the goods,'but by the Act of 1573 the duties were levied ad valorem, or according to value.. The later Act provided 'a'now method altogether to which the new form of declaration was especially applicable. It would have been wholly insufficient if the appellant (the defendant in the Court below) had made a declaration under, the Act of -1858." "But further, the Act'of 1573 only made.afalse, declaration an offence '.if it were wilfully false, and if not "knowingly" fals'e,-'then the conviction" could not be supported. But the learned; magistrate held that it was sufficient if the declaration were false in fact.->There'was a fnrther ground of objection to the conviction, namely, an jection relating fiT'the competency of the ■ defendant in the Court. below'(now. the appellant) to give evidence, but that turned upon'the question whether the offence was civil or.criminal. . The learned magistrate.in the Court "below that it was sufficient if the declaration were false, in :effect,"thuß excluding altogether tKe question of intent^rom,. being aa..elfememVin'the conviction. -But if the defendant were competent to giv.e evidence, then .it-was" ah bbjec-j tioii to the conviction that he was not allowed "to give evidence. -vm,,.:..'i :•■;-. vuarA >i • llis Honor: it is clear that he was compe,tent,to give evidence..-.!r..,;,,!'. i.. ■, . ;.>■;» m.'••■' .. ~;Mr. Hesketh: If the Gffence must be taken .to beijcriminal'; then .'a-guilty l knowledge should have been proved. " ' ' f _ The Attorney-G.eheral, in support of the : decision' of v the Court below,' said"the case was sent'iijp'ifrom'thejiriferior-'Court in a ""somewbat t irregular r| f6rm, f The facts ,wer.e Tiot^set - out, 'nor .the. declaration, although the information was'set out. AsTegards the .competency ; of the defendant in ' the Court below, : it was clear thercrcouldbe.no appeal from ■ the decision of r tte in a caso of /this kind could be to the SuCourt. With respect tn the declara- ; Itioh :being;fals'e','Mr.'-Hesketh -hid-contencled that the informant' was" bound to' prove tWe false and fraudulent representacion, but the law was, fclmt infprmant had not that, obligation cast upon him, but that it was ; open' to ithe defendant 'to 'have- , produced evidence that there was no false or fraudulent element in bis deoiKration." His,, Honor : savl- ho., would prefer" to' hear the learntd Attorney-General upon the real contention in the casejhamely/whetherthe Act of IS73—not boing iucorporated in any way inthe previous-Act of-ISSB--provicling "as it (lid a specified form of dcclanttion, and creating a special offence, whether the declaration rna-.le under the later Act, which is sea offence .against it,; should" be held to come also within tho provisions of the older Act ? Ho drew-the nfctpiition of the- Attorney-treiicr.-ibtOitho fact that these two statutes wore nob iu jiarl-ffuiltrla, the one beinn a "Customs Keguljitions Act" aud tho other a- '."-Gnstoma;. Tariff. >V0t.",;.1t, was also.a mattur for consideration in; the argument of the learned Ati-orney that in the former Act there was uo provision for> wilfully knowing.

Jho .Attorney-General aaid-that the-objecfc-of the Legislature in passing both Aoti had. one and. thejsamelintentionj.tp prbtect the , revenue against fraud. Hence a faleerdeclaration ia a.,jnatte.r v relating, to entry of dutiable'-' articles 1 had * Keen-' visited ivith penalties and.fprffiiture, and was regarded, as in the nature of a perjury. There was no repeal of the,l3sth section, of. Eeguiation's'Act/ And the reason was appairentwhy such , 'provisions and , such statutes .shonld-bf* held to w remain in;>fprce;. If the 'information alle'gqd anyjnatterof. f.act,whioh MktieV'ifr waVfor "the defendant to produce evidence that the allegation-was made in error, or that the declaration was true, at all events hot wilfully tfalse. The defendant, must haie kuown the things which were in 'WBTJossesaipn. ?fie cofitendedrttattrtlie provision of the Act of 1873 was simply an addi-, tiou_,to.,the,;,,remedy:.wl)ioh waa\ provided by" the' previous Act. ~...-. • , ■, Mr _Hesketh, in reply, said.thafrit could "neverbe ttie "intention of to provide a criminalpunishment for an offence which the party charged had means of 'knowing that he ever committed; and'wmbhwas, i£ there was,an at all, conf-' mitted l}y others." The defendant informed against; in any! case might be, wholly innocent. ~,_,.-• * ;r Hisi Honor.V'But'the 'correspondents ,of each perpons might.be regardedi.'asv their 'agents," and they would be presumed, () to: be informed of the contents of the packages.; Mr. HesketlTT "Persons receive their communications by,,. majl ,enclosing-, these Invoices:'- They : can have' no'possible know- , interposition.of .other articles in: 'the packages, Theyproceed^pass.entry, but : fouhd,thegoodsarefprfeited,< and the defendant is fined ■£lwy-"H he may be held responsible, having no knowledge of tho presence of these extra articles, he surojy ought to be allowed to/give evidence' "thiithe had no knowledge—no ( wilful know-' ledge. A "' " ' ; '■■■ Jiis Honor said the only question upon; which he had a doubt was, whether or not section 135 of theiGustoms 'Regulations Actwas" applicable to a declaration under the Customs . Tariff Act of., 1573... ...Hβ, was! of Opinion on the other points that if applicable knowledge was not necessary according.to .the principles laid down in "Broom's Maxima,", and contained iu the decisions, of the learned ./judges, in.: "Regitia v. Waodrow."'. It ~.was-' . therefore.- quite ■sufficient ■ to '■',show",that .id declaration' was false in fact.-even though it were proved that ( tlie person making it was not aware that it was false. —is to rejection ,pf eyi- ■ dence of the defendant, his JJoiipr was.clear that "the 'evideiico.l.pf.'. the'defendant/was admissible, to , shpw, that -..his-declaration , was not -wilfully* false. ,. At'any-ratey he I was entitled to show that; if riot as a justifi-. '• cationj at all,events, in," mitigation of - the .penalty.;. , He Woulditake;.tinie ito-consider, the only point-in respect to which he had;; auy doubt,-and give judgment-oh'a future day. .-,.. •.; -,-■ ■■■■■■_- ;'■'■', ...... \ — .-.:.■■ : '■<•>■<■■ —— : —•— ■'. .. i "■ ■ RE JOSEPH BOULTER'(DEED ''OF AERA.IJQE.JIENTj. ,';;•' . ■'.'■,'.' '."'■' ."•'"'ilfe. Hesketli applied' for an order to de-., clare the ccmpleto execution of the deed; | .;. His Honor said tliat in this case the deed' ■had' been-assented to' by a.'resolution iin' writing passed, by.a lnajorityan numberjof. '.all-the creditors—rnot merely of those present at the meeting, — representing three-fourths 1 in value of the creditors of the arranging' debtor. In other respects the provisions pf the Act had been cpmplied with , . He also observed ' that , in this case as well as in' another case to which he had already referred that there was a similar reservation in favour, of the purchase of the premises by'the debtor. He thought that such a reservation was in contradiction-to the. spirit of , any, such deed. It was extremely to suppose that a person who , was riot able to' pay his debts, and who was.bouad.'to give, up everything lib possessed tp. hw ore'litors, should, yet have the means of purchasing -the premises inJwhich he had carried on his business. He thought that.a.claute making such a reservation should : not be in a deed of this, nature. ■ " ' ■ -Mr. Hesketh did not' think that there was any meaning', »3 regarded the present case at .all. events, for he believed that the. arranging debtor had no means whatever of making any such purchase. . : ■-, \ His Honor said as the provisions- of the Act had been complied with and the deed executed 03'.a majority of creditors, representiug three-fourths iu value, lie would make the order declaring the deed' completely executed: - "' *" " : Order made accordingly, .:; The Court rose at a quarter to 4 p'clock. , ♦ .. - ... ' ; POLiCE COUKT.—Wednesday;''..»- I [Before A. Beetham, and J, Cosgravo, Esqs., Justices.] Drunkenness. —T.wo drunkards were punished in the ordinary manner. ! j Dkunk and Disoruerly.—_Mary Mt'Killaney was found guilty of this aggravated form.of inebriety, and wasoffored the choice, ef paying a fine pf 10a and costs or puffisrin'g. a term of 4S hours' imprisonment with hard labour.-,:; '-■ ' ■ •' ' .'■.' ' : ' n ' Vagrancy.—Levi: Watts, an old man; of 69, pleaded guilty : to : a breach of the Vagrant Act, Jjy-haviDg no lawful visible means of support, andiwas sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment; without hard labour.—William Burns,, for a similar offence, was visited with a like punishment. 1 Wlfe-bkatiug. — Jphn ■ McGr.ith was charged, pn remand, ■ with .murderously assaulting his wife....; Sub-Inspector Pardy applied fer a .further remand for eight days. The wemau was lying ,at ,the: Hospital dangerously, ill,, and. ; iE erysipelas set in she would surely, die. , Mr. Laishley appeared for the prisoner, and asked that ho might be allowed out on bail. The Bench said that they must have soinp evidence before granting" tKe'remaud. .Sergeant O'Connor was then'sworn.'and deposed as to the extent and nature of the woman's injuries. She was in a frightful state.' She stated thalt the prisoner, bad beaten her ab6nfc the ■head.'/aud face, and had jumped -upon her bodywheu -she was lying prostrate upon the floor. The remand was granted, and the baif refused."' An Alleged Kleptomaniac. — Faimy Spayn, a girl of 15,. was: charged with the larceny of wearing to the: value of £3 Iβ Cd, the property of-Mr. Goldie. v SubInspector Pardy stated. that the girl had already suffered a month's imprisonment for petty larceny. .'.'The .offence with' which she was now charged ivas committed previous to ,the. pie' fpr.wSidh. she, had received punish-, ment. The father of the girl appeared in Court, and stated his belief that.his daughter ..was .«' not right in her mind"—that, in fact, slie was afflicttid with kleptomania. The Bench dealt out to the father a severe rebuke for: the" negligence ho had apparently displayed in the care and training of. his daughter. The prisoner was then , ■discharged, on the condition that she should be produced before the Court at any time it thought fit tp order, during the next twelve 1 months. A conviction was recorded against' her. - . /■' .... ... , . : Catjsk and Effect.—Hugh Hind,'who -had appeared,at tho previous sitting of the' Court, suffering from delirium 'tremens, and been remanded, was now discharged, a recovery having been effected in the interim. ■ i ;-.■-.• O .■•:.....,,-• .- -. ONEBTO.NGAR.M. COURT.—Wednesday. ' [.Before K. C. Barstow, Esq.,' R;M.]. ■" ' Drunkenness.—Pour offenders suffered the usual jpenalty. ; ' : Charqb op Assault against A Schoolmaster.—Alexander Grant, master of the pnbhc school, was charged with unlawfully assaulting a schoolbcy named- Robert'Vanse by striking him with- his fists. . Mr. Tyler appeared fer: the defendant. George Vause father of the boy, deposed : My son Robert; 16 years old, attends the public school. ; He came h_6me;at noon on the Gth, crying very muc k: his .body was bruised. There were several-blue ' 'marks between' the shoulders. -I took him to Mr. Dunwoodie and showed hina the marks. To Mr. Tyler : There has not beeii a good feeling between myself and Mr. Graut, , on account of former abuse of the boy. On that occasion he was reprimanded.,.,by:- -tho committee. I told the boy that if Mr. Grant used mm again in-the same manner to hit him on the head with a state, and knock his spectacles down his tliroit. 1 said this immediately after tho first assault. He ia a quiet boy,-and does not require much punish ment . Robert Vauso (on being examined as to the nature of an oatu, the boy did not pass with any credit, but his Worship permitted him to bp sworn) deposed : I go to Mr. Grants school. On the 6th.March 1 spat on -another boy's slate, and lie same. Mr. Grant came and hit , the other' boy twice. He liit me on the hand and twoor times,on .the ,back. -I was then

going to -thro-sv-my slate airhimpbut ho ' . snatched it avvav-. then pulled, me out arid" hit'me'four the back with.his hjin.6!. .lie.then caught'me, by the throaty pushed* me , down on the desk, me several times v on,, the iace with a strap.- : 1-I^went-to-^my"seat,'and 'he went away, and, .came back and, struck me again two'or L three times with a strap. !iIV. ; Grant firs^reameTttf us because I called ... Hβ,, qarne in. front.- of us, ' and a'desk was , " between Us. I was the first to spit. He hijb me several times over the back with a strap, besides on the head, before I offered to throw the--slate. /If fried to throw ; it at his head. He theu came round behind i .the,(desk.:and took me out.'*- I-tried"to" get away. I did not put up my hands and try to strike him. -'He had hold of my. ueek.-' , James a.boy at the schfjol;' deposed to the eame'facts exactly, and that Varise afterwards complaihed-vdry much of his back. Mr. Grant is..not -cruel to the boys, and there, is.not a great deal, of,punishment in, •.";9<?chool. .",Vapse,said he could not go on' with his sums, as his back pained him, iand ■the/ master , struck 'him: again seyCTal times. •Andrew'Dunwoodie deposed : I ain not now one ~of;, the School Committee: I BawitHo , iboy.-Vause. :There were ."several marks— r bruises—on His back; They were large Miv Tyler, claimed that there was no case against defendant ;:'by the'evidence tor the prosecution the punishment was not excessive. His Worship considered the punishment- , ■ with' '■ the ; ' : strap hardly eufficiont , fondue : - offence,- but thought 'explanation, was "required.' as to. using ; .his fists. :,.Alexander; Grant, therefore, deposed to the facts stated by the boys as being in the",'main.' The boy Vause 'said ,Ke would throw;his slate at me,, and I struck it put of hia hand when he raised it. He then'squared at me with his Bsts, andI Struck me and tried to kick ' .ine. '.;■.■ AVnen-I had forced him down onto tae,fprm, I struck.him two or three times between the shoulders. His Worship could not'altogether justify the use of fists, liut • .the; boy was so thoroughly insubordinate that there was.,no help for it. ■ The father's advice to hia sou was very injudicious, and 'the case would be dismissed." :: "' '"