OPIUM FOUND

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11248, 28 June 1922, Page 4

OPIUM FOUND

A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. , CHINESE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS. In the Supreme Court, yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Hing Fun and Git Ton, two Chinese, appealed against their, convictions and fines imposed by Mr F. lv. Hunt, in the Magistrate’s Court. Appellants were represented by Mr E. G. Jellicoe, Mr A. Fair, Crown Solicitor, appearing for the Collector of Customs. The Orientals, according to the evidence, had been found in possession of a quantity of opium, contrary to the provisions of the Opium Act. Hing Fun had been fined £SO and Git Ton £25 in the lower court. The grounds of the appeal, in the case of the former appellant, were that the opium in question Had been stolen by some person from the Crown, and as, admittedly, the opium had been in the lawful possession of the Crown, to be found in possession of it was not an offence under the Opium Act. During the course of Mr Jellicoe’s argument, His Honour intimated that, apparently, by the amending Act of 1910, it was made a specific offence for a Chinaman to be found in possession of opium at all, in a 6tate fit for smoking, whether it had been unlawfully imported or not. It was, therefore, said His Honour, not essential to show that the opium had been unlawfully imported, nor was it any answer to show that it was legally held in the country. In the case of Git- Ton, which was almost identical with the foregoing,tho opium had been discovered on the premises of the appellant during tho execution of a search warrant under the Gaining Act. Prosecuted originally for allegedly keeping a gaminghouse, it was contended by Air Jellicoe that the proceedings under the Gaming Act prevented proceedings being taken for alleged possession of opium.

At the conclusion of Air Jellicoe’s argument, His Honour intimated that he desired to hear a reply only on the question as to whether or not it was necessary to show that the appellant was aware of the illegal origin of the opium. To this Air Fail- replied that the cases cited by Mr Jellicoe to establish such a proposition applied only to prohibited importations such as soft goods, sugar, or articles, of ordinary currency. In the case of the Opium Act, contended counsel, the onus had been thrown on the defendant to show where the opium had been obtained, and for what purpose. His Honour reserved his decision.