POWERS OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16002, 19 February 1914, Page 8

POWERS OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS.

AN EXCITABLE SHOPKEEPER,

(Fβ Ukitid Paige Aeeocnnoe.)

AUCKLAND, February 18. Joseph Wachner was charged in the Police Court this morning that he assaulted J. P. Ridings, Collector of Cus- N toms, and J. S. Higginson, Customs officer, and obstructing them in the execution of their duty. The Customs Department stated that two officers of the Customs Department went to search Wachner's shop because there was reason to . believe that Wachner was selling cigarettes to retail dealers on which duty had not been paid. The officers were armed with proper authority to search, but Wachner, when he learnt their mission, flew into a great passion, called them thieves and resisted the search. The Collector of Customs was sent for, and. he arrived with a " writ of assistance," which was an authority giving him very far-reaching powers. This was explained to Wachner, but he simply became infuriated, called the men expert thieves, instructed his assistants to keep a close watch on their hands, and threatened to fight them,_ at the same time assuming pugilistic attitudes. The burden of his complaint was that they must get a search warrant if they wished to search the premises, and he refused to recognise any other authority. The Collector of Customs then sent for a constable, whose appearance had the effect of quickly calming the shopkeeper and enabling the search to be proceeded -with. No uncustomed goods were found on the premises. The Customs Department could have proceeded under the Customs Act, in which case the magistrate would have no option but to impose a term of imprisonment of not less than six months or more than nine months; but as no physical violence had been actually used the charge had not been laid under the Customs Act, but in the ordinary way. What the department wanted to do was to wa-rn Wachner and other people of excitable temperament that the authorities of the Customs ofliceTS rendered a search warrant unnecessary, and that such officers must not be obstructed or insulted when they were doing their duty. Defendant was convicted, and ordered to pay £4 14s 6d costs, as the offence was not likely to be repeated, and as no uncustomed gftods had been found in the place.