CUSTOMS FRAUD CHARGES.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVIII, Issue 12121, 24 December 1913, Page 8

CUSTOMS FRAUD CHARGES.

(Per Press Association.) Christchurcli, December 23. The Customs cases were, continued at the Police Court this morning. Additional interest was lent to tile proceedings by the appearance of John "Hill, landing waiter in the Customs Department at Lyttelton, who had only been arrested the previous day. "Mr A. E. Wright conducted the cases on behalf of- the Customs Department. ••Ernest'"Walker Wood and .John Hill were charged with .stealing £49 lis, tile property of W. Brittenden and Soil. Mr Wright stated that- Wood was iu the employ of J. M. Hejwood and Co., Customs agents, whilst Hill was landing waiter in the employ of the Customs Department. By the s.s. Arawa Brittenden and Son imported four cases of drapery, some'of the contents of which were subject to a duty of',lo per cent: ad valorem arid the other contents to aduty of 20 per cent, ad valorem'. Wood, who was engaged to pass these particular goods, put in the prime entry for £lB2 14s 3d, subject to a duty of £SO, whereas as a matter of fact the goods were worth £365 3s 9d, and were subject to a duty of £OO 10-i. Wood riiade out a debit for £9!) 10s, and it was on tho difference that he was being charged with theft. But for the omission of Hill Wood could not have committed the alleged offence. - Both accused pleaded not guilty, reserved their defence 3 and were committed for trial. Ernest Walter Wood and John Hill were then charged with, on July last, stealing £67 7s, the property of "MV Brittenden and Son, Christchrirch. In this ea.se Mr Wright said it was similar to the last. . Brittenden and Son imported some goods ex the Remuera. The elitry nut .in. was £235, whereas the value of the goods: was £470 odd, and the duty payable on sucti was £l2B 14s, whereas the amount actually paid was £6l 7s. Accused both again pleaded no't. guilty, reserved their defence, and were committed for trial. Wood was grajited his previous bail, and Hill was granted bail, self in £2QO ;rad one surety of £3OO, or two of £l5O each. Ernest Walter Wood and James Anderson Campbell were'charged with, on September loth, 1913, stealing £76, the property of W. Brittenden and Son. Mr Wright stated that in September last Brittenden and Son imported «ixtyfour cases of goods ex lonic, the value •of which was £1415 14s 3d. iThe value was declared at £1139 Is 3d, and the correct duty payable was £432 7s 9d, but the amount paid the Customs Depa it ment was only £356' 7s 9d. The correct amount was debited against Brittenden and Son-,-and paid by them, and a cheque for the correct amount was paid by Heywood and Co. Accuseds who pleaded not guilty, reserved their defence, and were committed lor trial, their previous bail being granted. • Hugh Law ton Owen and .lames Anderson Campbell were then charged with, on October 7th, stealing £49 4s, the property of George Davies (Limited) -

Mr Wright said the charge was in respect of two cases of goods, which arrived l>y the Opawa in October lasf. The goods wore textile, and liable to a duty of 20 per cent. They were passed as trimmings and buttons, which came in free. Owen passed the entries, and debited the Sartorial Service (LimitedV. successors of George Da vies (Limited), with the correct amount. That amount had not been paid to (he Customs Department. Accused wore committed for trial, both pleading not guilty. Hugh Lawton Owen and .Tames Anderson Campbell were charged with oil September 30th, stealing £3O, the property of the Crown Clothing Company. Mr Wright said the. case for the Crown was that goods ex the Ruapehu, valued at £l7O odd, had been given to Owen to pass. The goods had incorrectly been valued at £7O odd. and £ls, 1-s duty paid, though £'37 12s had been collected from the Crown Clothing Company. Accused reserved their defence, and, were committed for trial. The other charges were: B. L. Owen and J. A. Campbell, alleged theft of £2O 16s, the property of George Davie.s (Ltd.); G. C. Francis and .J. A. Campbell, alleged theft of £o 16s, the property of J. H. Parker; H. L. Owen and J. Hill, alleged theft of £l4 15s, the property of -Robert Malcolm (Ltd.) ; H. L. Owen and J. A. Campbell, alleged theft of £1!), the property of Geo Davies (Ltd.); G. C. Francis and J. A. Campbell, alleged theft of £9, the property of J. H. Parker and Co. In- all the cases accused pleaded not guilty, and were committed for trial. j