SILVER FORFEITED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21861, 25 July 1934, Page 10

SILVER FORFEITED

ATTEMPT TO EXPORT

REGULATIONS HELD VALID THEFT OF £BO7 RECALLED JUDGMENT FOR THE CROWN An affirmative answer has been given by Mr. Justice Herdman to the question whether the regulations prohibiting an attempt to export coined silver from New Zealand are. valid. The question was raised in an action between the Solicitor-General (Mr. Meredith) and William Toomey, masseur, of Auckland (Mr. Haigh), to determine whether the Solicitor-General had the right to demand Toomey to forfeit the sum of £BO7 in silver which was stolen from a motor-car in Wanganui last year, and which, it was alleged, was being taken to Wellington for export. His Honor said that section 12 of the Finance Act, ]931 (No. 2), authorised the making of certain regulations, fixed a penalty for a breach of the regulations, and provided for a forfeiture of silver with which a particular breach of the regulations was concerned.

In its original form, sub-section 3 of section 12 gave the Crown a limited authority only, for forfeiture could tako place only upon proof of importation into New Zealand or exportation from New Zealand. This difficulty was realised, and to meet it sub-section 2 of section 12 was amended to provide for a forfeiture of silver which was the subject of any breach of a regulation made under the authority of the Statute.

The allegation in this case was that there w,is an attempt to export silver within the meaning of clause 4 of the regulations, and the question for determination was whether the Statute empowered the Governor-General-in-Council to create this as an offence. "A regulation prohibiting the complete act of exportation only would be of little use," said His Honor. "I cannot see why,, under a general power to make regulations to prohibit the export of silver, the Governor-General should not have authority to prohibit every step taken by a. person who intends to export for the purpose of achieving his ultimate object.

"This case, I think, comes within the following principle stated by Maxwell' on the Interpretation of Statutes: 'Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution.' My answer to tho question asked in the notice of motion is in the affirmative, and the sum of £7 7s is allowed to the informant for costs."