EXPENSIVE FURS.

NZ Truth, Issue 216, 14 August 1909, Page 5

EXPENSIVE FURS.

BREACH OP CUSTOMS LAWS

THIRD ENGINEER, OP MANUKA FINED. .

Mr W. Gr. Riddell, S.M., gave his reserved decision, m the Magistrate's Court to-day, m the case m which tho Collector of Customs prosecuted Cecil Haughton, third engineer of the' s.s. Manuka, for harboring uncustomed goods. His Worship st ted that defendant had had m his possession a set of furs, valued at £4. He had declared his dutiable goods, but had not included the furs, which he said he was taking to Dunedin. He also stated that he had no intention of evading the Customs. The defence was that, firstly, Haughton did not know that the goods were dutiable, and, secondly, that Dunedin, and not' Wellington, was the place where the goods were to be unshipped. 'To his Worship the former defence did not appear sound ; defendant know perfectly well that the goods were m his possession, and whether they were dutiable or not was a question of law — an old law, with which defendant should have been acquainted. The mere statement that he was not so acquainted was not sufficient. There was, his Worship thought, sufficient knowledge on the part of defendant to bring him under the section of the Act. On the second point raised, his Worship mentioned that the goods were not consigned to a particular port, and it seemed to him that, m such a case, where duty was required, it would be due at the first port of call. Defendant must be convicted, and would be fined £12. A REDUCTION ASKED FOR. Mr Meredith, for defendant, drew his Worship's attention to a section m the Act, which allowed the court to make a reduction m the fine, m the case of first offenders. Mr 0. S. Nixon, Collector of Customs, objected to any reduction. He pointed out that the case had been defended. If defendant had come to court, and pleaded guilty, no objection to a reduction m the . fine would have been made. Tfia Worship said that if the Customs authorities had asked for a penalty of £100, instead of just treble the value of the furs, a reduction might have been allowed-. His Worship accordingly held that defendant must pay the full amount of the penalty. The furs were forfeited. On the face of it the "Post's" report would seem to .be- fair and impartial ; and so it is so far as it goes. But it does^ not go far enough ; it simply gives one ' side of the case, embodied m the magisterial remarks, which makes the case look very black against the defendant, whereas, the whole facts would make him appear a very guileless, if not an absolutely guiltless, individual. As to me obligation of the press to publish both sides of a case at the same time, the fulfilment of such an obligation would be making too large a demand upon its vaunted impartiality and to trespass too much upon its proverbially limited space — except to make room for the equally proverbial "fat" advertisements, partisan puHs and so-called "Society" slobbergraphs. But for "Truth," at anyrate, the sound- old maxim, "AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM," holds good m this . case of Mr Engineer Haughton,' Now, what are the plain facts ? Defendant had purchased a set ol furs at Newcastle (N.S.VV.)— while the Manuka was coaling there — intending them as- a present for his mother, who resides at Dunedin. When seized by the Customs officers they were lying m an unlocked drawer m his cabin, no attempt at concealment being attempted m any way, there, being nothing else besiues the furs m the unlocked, and practically open, drawer. So far so good. This fact would seem to bear out defendant's statement that he had no intention of evading the Customs. Haughton further declared that he did not know that the goods (a single set of furs purchased tor a present) were dutiable. In reply to this Mr Stipendiary Magistrate Kiddell declared THIS DEFENCE NOT SOUND because ' • the defendant knew perfectly well that the goods were m his- possession, and whether they were dutiable or not was a question of law, an did law withwhich defendant should hare been acquainted. The mere statement that he was not so acquainted was not sufficient." This decision would seem to make . A JUDICIAL JUGGERNAUT of Customs law for innocent or ignorant persons whom . the Customs officials may choose to charge with .smuggling without the snadow of a shred of evidence xo support guilty knowledge, , which ought to be essential to conviction.. Perhaps the harshness of the magisterial decision will be made more manifest m the ionn of a few questions I 1o Mr Stipendiary- Kiddell, together with ! the answers they would suggest— '

QUESTIONS. REPLIES. 1. Is not intent an 1. There was not a essential to con- tittle of evidence viction ; and if a adduced against man may be con- Mr Haughton victed of an intent tending to prove to commit a crime on his part intenwithout aotually tion to evade the committing it, Customs; such eviought not a man dence as there was to be held guiltless went to disprove of a minor misde- any such intenmeanor if all the tion. evidence and surrounding circumstances go to disprove intent ? 2. What had defend- 2. The mere fact ant's knowledge "that the goods " that the goodß were m his (Hauwere m his posses- ghton's) possession" to do with ion" was not an his intention to essential element evade the Customs, m the considerespecially when tion of the charge, there was an ahso- He was not eharglute absence of any ed with stealing attempt at evasion them, but with ator concealment ? tempting to conceal them for an unlawful purpose. But there was not a shred of evidence showing such attempt : the evidence was all the other way. 3. Why should En-j 3." While lack of gineer Haughton, knowledge of,- the or any other un- law is not a plenofficial layman, ba ary plea of exonerpunitively held, so . ation, usually it is to speak, to a pre- accepted m miticise knowledge of gation when conCustoms Law and comittant circumRegulations, old or , stances Bupport new, which your such a plea, experience m your own Court has . shown you, over /- ; and over again, that Customs officials, presumed experts, themselves are not possessed of? 4. In view of the 1. The dubiety of the fact that you, an Magistrate as to experienced and the port at which trusted adminis- duty was due strator of the law, shows that 'the took ■ twenty-four matter is a moot hours to decide point not altogethwhether the duty er settled by his on Mr Haughton's decision ; . and it is furs was due at the quite possible that first port of . call were- it to be ar(Wellington) or at gued on appeal to the port of desti- a higher Court it nation (Dunedin), would be decided do you think that _. agajnst the Magis.in this matter, at trat'e m favor of any rate, there was the port of destievidence of "suffi- . nation. • cient knowledge on " ' the part of the defendant to bring him under the section of the Aot ■?" 5. Does a judicial m- 5. Constructive charterpretation of the ges are ever to be Customs Aot ■ and deprecated especiBegulations ' per- ally under Cusmit of what are toms Laws, which known as construe- are largely adr.iintive ofiences; and istered by regulaare persons tion, and at the charged with discretion of lay breaches of that officials. The worst Act to be de- criminals are given prived of a_ Brit- the benefit of the on's constitutional doubt ; which is right and privilege, their right: how "the benefit 'of the much more is it doubt?" the right of per-. sons charged with venial . offences, mere misdemeanours, inadvertent-' ly committed m ignorance of the law. Mr Haughton, m the face of strong evidence to \ support it, was deprived of ifc, the doubt being made . to weigh against him without a tittle of evidence on that side. 6. Are you not aware 6. Customs officials, that Customs of- through ignorance, ficials, to whom is often harass and attributed an inti T annoy innocent and mate and accurate law-abiding folk, knowledge of Cut- and bring unwar- • toms Law, often * ranted charges show themselves which are preposas lamentably ig- terous m their norant as the most initiation and lamentably ignor- harassing prosecuant laymen, tion, as will be against whom they shown briefly institute "hit or below, miss" prosecutions on the comfortable Harold Skimpole, principle of "Better hang wrong 'fler than no 'fler at all?" 7. Is it right and 7. It is not right and proper, is it just proper; therefore, it and equitable, that cannot be just and Government offic- equitable, that inials should be per- competent or overmi t ted to perfect zealous officials themselves m a should be permitted knowledge of the to perfeeb their duties they are pre- knowledge and resumed to know, pair their blunders and paid to per- by rash prosecuform, by bringing tions of a persecu"fishing" prosecu- ting character, tions against persons who are simly suspected, or , making throats of pro s c c ution against manifestly innoccn'j individuals?

8. Are the Customs 8. There being no Act and its admin- check over the inistration intended soitution or hindto make if; easy to ranee of Customs do right and dim- prosecutions, right ! cult to do wrong, or wrong, it is according to Glad- within the power stone's definition of the Customs of just and salu- officials to make it tory law ; or dang- difficult, and someerously difficult to , times impossible, do right and infin- to do right. Their itely easy to do action m this wrong ? direction should be" controlled by legislation, or, at least,, by Regulations having the approval of the Crown Law au- , thorities.

SPECIMENS OF CUSTOMS CUNNING. As showing the ignorance' existing' among Customs officials themselves, two or three almost incredible instances may be cited without going far afield In search of them. During ' the search of the Manuka; on the occasion when Mr Haughton's set of furs was seized, the Customs officials raided the sailors' and stokers' quarters. After searching high and low and finding nothing that could be called contraband, they seem to have set to work to "construct" a case by seizing a new suit of clothes belonging to a sailor, which they found m his kit, and a new pair of boots, which they found under a trimmer's pillow m his bunk. The sailor, who was at work on deck at the time, being, told that Custom collectors were "COLLARING HIS CLOBtMM,'-' went below, and asked the reason ot the seizure of his brand-new suit, purchased and paid for only a few days belore m Sydney. He was told that because the suit was new and apparently had never been worn, it Was liable to duty, and as it had not been declared on the ship's manifest it was contraband, and he (the sailor) would be prosecuted for smuggling. All the poor devil of a, sailor could do and say was to submit to the seizure, and express the hope that his new suit would come to no harm. He was told to be careful what he said, or perhaps~ HE MIGHT COME TO HARM.— a la Mr Justice Starlcigh to 'Mr Sam Weller m the celebrated case of Bardell versus Pickwick. The suit was taken ashore and detained for two hours ; when the blundering oUicials blundered upon the fact that they had blundered, and gave the sailor back his clothes. In the case of the coal-tnmmer's new pair of boots, these were impounded also, but returned to the owner after a detention of several hours. What would Mr Magistrate Riddell's decision have been h^d these two provident, thrifty seafarers, respectively owners of a new suit and a new pair of boots, been '•■ summoned by the zealous Customs Collector? Would he have convicted them of harboring dutiable goods ? Very likely, because not very long ago a fireman aboard the Tongarirtf was summoned and lined m Wellington for having m his possession THREE NEW CALABASH PIPES, valued at 2s 6d each. So that it would seem that a man must not own two or three new pipes, even for his own use, unless he declares them ! In another case the 'Customs officials threatened one of the chief engineers' of a leading liner with a prosecution for harboring dutiable goods m the shape of less than a dozen dress shirts, several of which had been worn, washed and done up and put back m the cardboard box m which they were bought and delivered originally. Customs officials' are beginning uo look with shrewd suspicion on ~a person who comes into port with a surplus of shirts, socks, or collars ; their possession of spare personal clothing and other effects being ATTRIBUTED TO CONTRABAND CUPIDITY, and not to thrift and cleanliness. Men liable to such stupid suspicions, and who harass and worry innocent people on suqh suspicions, are not fit to be entrusted with the exercise of such fearsome and far-reaching discretionary powers. Customs officials of their calibre would make splendid pimps or crimps m collecting or constructing evidence m "cronk" divoice cases, but they are decidedly out of place m the Customs Service of this Dominion m this twentieth century. Conduct such as theirs will not facilitate the collection of legitimate Customs duties or the discovery of contraband ; rather will it conduce to the concealment of dutiable goods to an extent neither practised nor dreamt of at present and a consequent large annual loss of revenue to the Customs. !• . , ' "WHO'LL GUARD THE GUARDS 7" The Napoleonic Empire had its Secret Police ; Napoleon himself had his own Secret or "Contre-Police," who watched and reported upon the operations of the other fellows. Something like a Con-tre-Customs Police would seem to be necessary m Wellington for watching t'other fellows, and for protecting the public against their ignorant blunders and yicious vagaries. ,