WHARF WHISKY CASES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19929, 24 April 1928, Page 13

WHARF WHISKY CASES.

TWENTY POUNDS PENALTIES. THE QUESTION OF BREAKAGES. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION Further allegations of laxity on the part of customs officials in handling whisky, gin, rum and liqueurs were made in the presence of a crowded gallery in the Auckland Police Court yesterday, when decision was delivered in the cases of two receiving agents in whose lockers at the wharves detectives had discovered liquor which should have been in bond.

Pleas of guilty were entered by William George Franklin, aged 50, who was charged on four counts with receiving two bottles of gin and two bottles of whisky, and with stealing a bottle of rum. Five charges arising out of the same circumstances were dismissed on account of the police offering no evidence, while two other charges concerning spirit belonging to unknown persons were dismissed by the Court, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence on which to convict. Franklin, who is married, is a receiving agent acting on his own behalf.

Having been convicted of receiving spirit knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained, Robert Edward Cooper, aged 58, receiving agent for E. and H. Craig and Company, appeared for sentence on four counts, involving two bottles of rum, one of vermouth and one of whisky. Each accused was fined £2O on one charge, and convicted and discharged on the remaining counts. Three boxes were required to hold the bottles, which were placed on the Court orderly's table m full view of the magistrate and the public. Firms named in the charge-sheet as being owners of the liquor were Hughes and Cossar, Hancock and Company, C. G. Macindoe, Limited, and the collector of customs. Several Charges Eliminated.

It was stated detectives had searched Franklin's locker on the waterfront, as well as his house. All the bottles exhibited in Court had been in his possession. However, convictions were recorded in only four of the 12 charges preferred, Mr. A. Moody, for accused, asking the chief-detective to tell the Court exactly how much evidence he had to sustain the charges be brought. Counsel said that in such cases the Court could not possibly convict on mere suspicion or suggestion. Counsel went through the charge-list seriatim with the chief-detective and eliminated seven charges. Kegarding one charge concerning three bottles of liqueur (which was dismissed) Chief-Detective Hammond said the particular lot should not exist, as it had been ordered to be confiscated. So bad had been the shipment when it arrived in Auckland that the firm that had imported it handed it back to the customs officers and told them to destroyit, as they were not prepared to accept it in its condition. " How did Franklin get it in his possesl sion?" he asked.

Mr. Moody: That is for you to prove. But surely he might just as well have it as let it be" given to the fishes. (Laughter.) Chief-Detective Hammond: It shows there is lack of control down there, to let this stuff get out. "A Pernicious System."

Later, when the pleas had been recorded, the chief detective, addressing the Court, said he did not wish to give the matter more publicity than was necessary. But the police had received complaints of thefts on the waterfront and it was their duty to investigate. There was no doubt a pernicious system had been going on on the Auckland wharves, as perhaps, was the case elsewhere. It showed there was great laxity on the pai't of the customs officers, the receiving agents and the importers. The loss was borne by the insurance companies and exporters. "This is an honest endeavour to stop this practice." he declared. In the case before the Court two bottles of whisky had been certified to by the customs officer as having been broken; yet they were at that moment reposing on the table in the eyes of everyone. How did they get there? That was the question which needed an answer. Mr, Moody said some blaino was surely due to the consignees, who had ' apparently winked their _ eyes at what was going on. Without throwing bouquets, Detective-Sergeant McHugh should be congratulated on his work in revealing the system which had no doubt been existing. Evidence was given by two customs examiners, one of whom had issued a certificate to the effect that in a shipment of 200 bottles there were 42 breakages. The police, however, produced two bottles which had been marked off as broken. "How do yoa account for that? * the chief detective asked Customs-Examiner Lewin, whose signature was on the certificate. Lewin: Two of us made the examination, but we were interrupted. I came on after another man. "Th 6 Officers Hoodwinked." Customs Officer Halliday was then called to the witness box, he having assisted Lewin in the examination. "Can you explain the presence of these two bottles?" the chief detective asked. Witness: No, I am afraid I cannot. I have not the faintest idea how they came to be here or how they got out of the cases. Recalled, Lewin slated he made the certificate out for 42 breakages because two cases were empty. "I cannot account for these two bottles," he said. The officer in charge of the wharf staff for the customs, George 11. Cornes, stated the explanation was, as far as he could make out, that the customs officer had been hoodwinked. Liquor was brought from the ships to the sheds and the merchant or his receiving agent then had possession of it. The customs saw the liquor was kept in bond and that duty was paid on it. All their control was practically dono on paper. Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M.: But what the receiving agents do is done in the eyes of the customs officers, is it not ? Witness: The officers cannot he watching ! all the time. The stuff is in chargo of the receiving agents. Then how do they get this liouor? — I cannot explain how they got that. Laxity of the System.

Agreeing with Mr. Moody, who stated there serried to he a laxity on the part of the consignees as well as others, the magistrate said it seemed quite obvious that it had been fairly easy to get liquor. "I stood the cass of Cooper down until to-day in the hope that I would have -xo't information to help me," ho said. " But I am really not much wiser now after hearing this case. No one can explain to me how 1 lie liquor which should bo destroyed or in bond got out." After Mr. Holmden had spoken for Cooper, the magistrate, in assessing the fines, said there was a good deal of difficulty to know what penalty to impose. In Cooper's case there was a statement involving a customs officer and on oath fooper had repeated what he hr.d said in his statement. On oath also, the customs officer had denied what Cooper had said. It may he that receiving agents did pet access to the liquor before the customs officer or without the officer's knowledge; but if was not for him to find excuses for the customs searchers when they were not able to explain for themselves.

In view of the slackness which appeared to exist he was not prepared to send the men charged to prison. It was said the work of receiving agents; was done in the presence of the customs offioial, but apparently it was not. because certificates had been given by searchers when they should not have been given. He was not, however, prepared to express an opinion on that matter.