ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9381, 22 March 1892, Page 5 (Supplement)

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS.

Auckland, March 16. The claim against Sharland aud Co., charged with a hreach of the customs laws, was before the Supreme Court to-day. The statement of defence sets out that the pills upon which insufficient-duty is alleged to have been paid were received by them as agents for A. J. White, London ; that the invoices and bills of lading were sent to defendants by the Sydney branch of that firm; that the defendants did not order or request Wh'ie to forward such goods, which were druggists' sundries within the meaning of the act; and that the defendants never had a beneficial interest in them. Mr Button and Mr 11. Williamson (Crown prosecutors) appeared for the Crown, and Mr Theo. Cooper and Mr Brookfield for the company. In opening the case, Mr Button said that the goods in question were entered at the customs by Mr Churton, agent for Sharland and Co.,

and there was a declaration by Sharland and Co.

that they were the duly authorised agents ol

the importers. The-customs-authorities very

properly declined to take notice of any foreign importers, and held their agents in this colony

responsible for goods imported

If it could be

shown that the agents were deceived by an

outside firm, the intent to evade could not be

alleged; but he submitted no such plea was admissible in the present case. The crucial

question was: whether the goods imported were not proprietary medicines—viz., Mother Siegel pills, and he was prepared to prove that they were such goods, and not druggist".' sundries as alleged. The pills in the Home country were 8s 6d per box. The suggestion to be- made was that the pills were imported in bulk and the boxes separately, and. that

they were put up as patent medicines- within the colony.

William Sibbald, landing waiter in the customs, gave evidence of the receipt of the goods,

which he detained because the rate of duty on Mother Siegel's pills was 25 percent., while the duty paid on the pills was only 15 per cent. Thomas Hill, collector of customs, deposed that the pills were imported as druggists' sundries, subject to a duty of 15 per cent. It was subsequently reported to him that these goods were patent medicines, liable to a higher rate

of duty — namely, 25 per cent., and ol

greater value than that for which thay were passed. Mr Sharlaud was requested to give some explanation as to why the pills passed in that manner. Several other matters required adjustment, and Frederick Sharland called at the collector's office. Sharland admitted that the goods in question were Mother Siegel pills. He promised to give

come explanation as to why the goods were passed as they had been passed, but that explanation did not come, and after a little while he (Mr Hill) had to report the matter to the Government. This referred to both consignments—one of four cases and one of two cases. Subsequent to the goods being detained lie wps informed that Sharland and Co. were simply agents. He had also some transactions with regard to some syrup that was imported in August last. It was imported as herbavum, and duty was paid on it at 15 per cent, as druggists' sundries. The amount of duty at that rate was Ll7. It was found afterwards to be Mother Siegel's syrup. There was some correspondence on the subject, and defendants' ■were permitted to pass a post entry for a further duty of over LIOO, as duty upon patent medicines. Harold F. Churton, clerk to Sharlaud and Co., said that in passing the entry for the goods he had nothing to guide him beyond "White's invoice that there were four cases of pills of the London value of 4s per pound. The company had nothing to do with them more than to receive and store them. The firm had no authority to open the goods and deal with them— ouly to pay duty on them and receive them. At the close of plaintiff's case, Mr Cooper, for defendants, contended that though there were two causes of action, wo evidence had been adduced to support either of them or to go to the jury. His Honor said he considered there was evidence to go to the jury on both. The court then adjourned till tomorrow, in order that Mr Cooper might have time to consider whether he would move for a nonsuit or let the case go to the jury. Auckland, March 17. The action against Sharland and Co. was continued to-day, when Mr Cooper announced that he was willing to allow the case to go to the jury, and would not move for a nonsuit. The case for the defence was then proceeded with.

John Frederick Churton deposed that in a discussion between Mr M'Kellar (secretary of customs) and himself he (Churton) asked what pills were druggists' sundries, and the reply was to the effect that pills not prepared for retail sale would come under that denomination—that pills in bulk were to be 15 per cent. He asked, further, what was to be considered pills in bulk, aud was told that "bulk" was not so much the size of the package, but as to whether proprietorship was claimed upon it.. Sharland and Co. then passed the bottled goods at 25 per cent. Recently they had imported goods prepared for sale in bottles—cathartic or liver pills. Seeing that cathartic and liver pills were 25 per cent, on the tariff, they submitted the matter to the Customs authorities at Wellington, and the reply was that the duty on these pills was 15 per cent. They were passed at 15 per cent, because there was no claim of proprietorship on the package, but only the makers' name. Sharland and Co. had

acted for White and Go. in certain matters. The arrangement made was that Sharlaud and Co. were to receive such goods as were shipped to them by A. J. White from London or Sydney, and pay such duty aud charges on the goods as wore required, to store goods oh their account, and to hand them over to whoever A.

White directed. Tho remuneration Sharlaud

:md Co. were to rtsuiv'o was LSO or L 52 besides the amount they were out of pocket. There was no formal written agreement, aud the

arrangement could have been cancelled at any time. Sharland and Co. knew nothing of what was in the cases other than the information obtained from tho invoices. There was no sale to Sharland and Co. The goods were insured i;i the name of A. J. White, who paid tbe premium. Sharland aud Co. had no authority to break the bulk of these goods. The amount of duty did not make a penny difference to Sharland and Co.

F. C. Sharland, one of tho directors of Sharland and Co., deposed that after the goods were stopped he saw the Collector of Customs as to whether Sharland and Co. should pay 15 or 25 per cent. The customs wanted them to pay 25, and he told Mr Hill (collector) they ceuld not do bo without referring to A. J. White. Nothing was said as to the denomination of the pills. He told Mr Hill he ought to form his own idea as to what the pills were; that he (witness) did not know personally. He had not seen the pills, or the cases containing them.

Alfred Header, representative of A. J. White (Limited) in the Australasian colonies, saicl that the analysis of the pills deposed to by J. A. Bond, Government Analyst, a previous witness, was not an analysis of Mother Siegel's pills. This witness further said that Mother Siegel's pills were sold in various countries under different names, and might be ranked as "druggists' sundries."

After the close of the evidence, Mr Justice Conolly announced that he had prepared the following issues for the jury:—(1) Were the pills imported with a view to be placed in boxes and sold as Mother Siegel's pills; (2) were they pills which in boxes would be sold as such; (3) were the defendants aware that there were such

pills imported with that view; (4) what was the value of them as pills without the. trade mark, and what was their value with the trade mark.

Counsel then addressed the jury,

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the first cause ot action for the amount claimed, L 1960, or treble the value of the goods, aud in the second cause of action, a claim for L9BO, the verdict was for the defendants. It was shown in the first case that the pills were imported as " Druggists' sundries," whereas they were pills sold as "Mother Siegel's" pills, and in the second case that in which the verdict was given for defendants, it was charged that the firm having imported a certain quantity of " Mother Siegel's" pills represented their value to be only 4s ■ per lb, whereas the value is 3s 6d per dozen boxes.