BREACH OF CUSTOMS ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16339, 23 March 1915, Page 9

BREACH OF CUSTOMS ACT

A FINE OF £25 IMPOSED. the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, 'S.M., Thomas Henderson was charged that on divers dates about the month of December, 1914. ux Thinedin, ho did smuggle from ships in the Dunedin Harbour two sets of black furs, one black silk blouse, and one lady's hat, •of the total value of £6 7s Bd, being goods ■dutiable to the amount, of £1 5a 6d. Ho -was also proceeded against on an alternative charge, that in the month of December, 1914, he did unship the goods mentioned in the preceding charge, such jroods being subject to the control of the Customs. Mr A. C. Hanlon appearing for the defendant, pleaded guilty to unshipping the goods. Superintendent O'Donovan said that tho •charge was laid under Section 61 of tha 'Customs Act. The defendant was a. steve•dore, and had been in the habit of fre•Kuenting a restaurant where a number of

voting ladies were employed. He asked one of the young ladies if she would like a. hat, and later on ho said that he would be able to give her some further articles. Eventually, on February 4, she went to the wharf, and tho defendant got from a shed there a, set of furs, a blouse and a hat and gavo their-, to her. As to the second set of fure they were given some time before that to another young lady from the same establishment. The defendant said "that he purchased the articles from a steward an board the vessel eome tone ■between December 1 and the time at which he spoke to the young lady. The Collector of Customs had assessed the value of the .goods as set out in the information. There was no doubt that the goods were never put through the Customs, and duty 'was never pail on them. The present employer •of the defendant was engaged in stevedore "work on. a large scale. Defendant was a married man -with one child. , Mr Hanlon said that the defendant admitted the charge. The facts -were as stated by the superintendent. The goods came down the coast in the ship from which they were obtained, and under the circumstances there was no opportunity for any person taking delivery of them to know if duty were paid or not. It would be futile to _ say that the defendant made any inquiries. But although . the ship had come down the coast, the steward had the goods in his possession and openly disposed of them. There were other places up the coast where the duty could have been paid, to enable the steward to have possession and to dispose of them as he had. There was nothing to be said in extenuation of the offence. The defendant had an opportunity to get the" goods cheaply, and he took it. They cost him £4, and the value was assessed at £6. The fact of the Blatter was that the defendant did not know if the duty had been paid, and did .not stop to inquire. The inference was that he must have known that the goods could not have been sold as cheaply as they had been if duty had been paid on them.' ■_- '.

The Magistrate said that it must be obvious to anyone securing goods from a ship below market value that the reason • for the lownees of the> price was that Customs duty had not been paid. In such a case the persoi so securing goods was a party to ■ a fraud. The maximum penalty for the offence -was £100, and' the minimum penalty was £25. Hβ thought the infliction of the minimum fine would be an adequate punishment, and the defendant would, accordingly, be fined £25, with ooste. . ■