IMPORTATION OF OPIUM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13368, 24 December 1906, Page 9

IMPORTATION OF OPIUM.

CHARGE AGAINST A CHEMIST.

DEFENDANT FINED £150.

TiiK hearing was concluded in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday, before, Mr. It. W. Dyer, S.M., of the case in which Walter Howe Dawson, chemist, of Wellesley-street, Auckland, was charged that on or about August 31 he unlawfully imported into the colony opium in a form suitable for smoking, and in contravention of section 66 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, which restricts the importation of opium; and, further, that he made a false declaration in a manner relating to the amount of Customs duty payable on the said opium, and that he was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent attempt to evade the duties of Custom.* in respect of the said goods. The defendant, who was represented by Mr. .1. 0. Martin, pleaded not guilty to all four informations, which were laid by Mr. Alexander Rose, Collector of Customs. Mr. Selwyn Mays conducted the prosecution. Mr. Martin stated that he did not intend to call any further evidence, as there was no possibility of examining thy exporters of the compound in-Loudon. Mr. Fond, Government analyst, oil being recalled, said that if he were to receive an older for pill-mass he would not send the ingredients placed one on top of tlie other in an unmixed state, but mixed. Mr. Mays asked permission to call evidence to show that the occurrence was designedly done, not accidentally, a.s set forth by the defence. Mr. Martin objected, but Mr. Dyer said that he wished all the facts to be brought out, and allowed Mr. Mays' request. Mr. Martin then asked for permission to call Mr. Rose, Collector of Customs, and it was granted. Mr. Martin (to Mr. Rose): What has been the practice of the Department with regard to opium convictions'/ Are there not rewards paid'.' Mr. Rose: There are rewards where there are convictions. When questioned as to the amount of the rewards, the witness instanced a case in which a Chinaman had been fined £100, a reward was recommended, and the amount was £25, but that sum was not necessarily paid to one person. Mr. Martin: Exactly. To those who were concerned in getting the conviction. Mr. Mays called Ah Pang, who said that, on September 29, last year, he was convicted and fined a total of £70 in connection, with an opium case. He had obtained opium in quantities varying from one ounce to a pound! from the defendant, and had several times, in one week, paid from 9s to 12s per ounce for it. A number of the opium jars found on his place in September, 1905, had been obtained from the defendant. The witness stated, in reply to Mr. Martin, that two detectives had interviewed him in respect to his evidence in the case. In reply to Mr. Dyer, the witness said that he had not obtained any opium from the defendant since September, last year. James Ah Kew, who had been convicted two years ago for having been found with opium in his possession, said that he had obtained opium from Dawson, and had paid 12s and lots per ounce for it. In reply to Mr. Martin, witness said that a detective had interviewed him in regard to his evidence in the case. In his defence in the case in which he was convicted he had told the magistrate that some of the opium found was left by his partner when he died. Ho had also said that he was ignorant that smoking went on amongst the boarders. ,••.... An assistant in Dawson's shop said that he had no recollection of seeing either of "the two latter witnesses. This concluded the evidence on both 6ides. .'•.''" His' Worship said that if he were convinced that any man, especially a European, had imported opium with the intention of selling it to Chinamen for smoking purposes, then he would have no hesitation whatever in inflicting the maximum penalty. From, the evidence brought forward the impression left on his mind was that the circumstances were of a highly suspicious nature, and in regard "to "the bismuth subnitrate having been found at the bottom of the jar below the opium, he was not satisfied that it was altogether a pure accident. Regarding the penalty, the Act said that the fine should not exceed £500, or in default, a, term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. The offence was of a serious nature, and he would have to deal with if accordingly. ; On the charge under the Opium Prohibition Act the defendant would be fined £100 and £16 2e costs, and on the charge of making a false declaration a fine of £50. and costs £3 10s. would be imposed. Mr. Mays then withdrew the two alternative charges of. importing restricted goods, and with being concerned in a fraudulent attempt to evade the Customs duties. Mr. Martin, whilst admitting that there could be no appeal in the case of the false declaration, had the amount of security fixed at £150 in case an appeal should lie considered necessary on the other charge.