LIQUOR LIFTED DISHONESTLY

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 336, 23 April 1928, Page 1

LIQUOR LIFTED DISHONESTLY

METHODS ON THE WATERFRONT RECEIVING AGENTS AWAIT SENTENCE rSRE has been grave laxity on the part of the consignees and insurance agents—they don’t seem to care what has been going on,” said Mr. Allan Moody in the Police Court to-day when further revelations were made concerning the handling of liquor on the waterfront.

The statement was made by Mr. j Moody in the course of his defence of William George Franklin, a receiving agent, aged 51, who was charged on 13 counts with stealing or receiving liquor in the Customs examination shed. The offences were alleged to have been committed in March and April. One charge of stealing case oil was j dismissed. It was stated that accused had had it in his possession for two years. Other charges of stealing and receiving liquor "were withdrawn, and accused finally pleaded guilty to three charges of receiving and one of theft. One of the charges dismissed related to three bottles of liquor which had been ordered to be destroyed by Customs officers, but came into accused’s possession. “That just shows the lack of control on the wharves/’ said Chief-Detective Hammond. Continuing, the chief-detective si id he did not wish to make more exposure or give more publicity to the case than was necessary. There v. as laxity among the Customs officers, receiving agents and importers. The losses were all borne by the exporters or the insurance companies. “Franklin was a receiving agent, and he evidently helped himself. “It is a pernicious system, and the ! police, having complaints, must bring i the matter before the Courts.”

Mr. Moody said that Franklin was | a well-known receiving agent, and had been in business, for 30 years. Some i blame was oortainiy attachable to the consignees, who had evidently winked I an eye at what had been going on. Mr. Moody went on to say that it | was a practice for receiving agents to - draw off samples of bulk whisky. The Magistrate: How has that j practice growui up. Mr. Fawcett, solicitor, an ex-cus-toms officer, explained that this drawing off of samples ■was allowed in the customs regulations. Evidence was then given by customs officers who had issued a certificate of breakages in one consignment of liquor. The issuer of the certificate said there were 42 “breaks.” The Chief-Detective: Do you know how two of the bottles you certified as “breaks” are here to-day? Witness: I don’t know. Mr. Hammond: And you don’t care. George Henry Cornes, a Customs officer, said that the explanation was that Customs officers were “hoodwinked.” “The liquor is brought from the ships to the sheds, and the merchant or his agent has possession of it. The customs control is only on paper.” The magistrate, Mr. W. R. McKean, said that he was satisfied that there i had been obvious laxity somewhere. ! but the accused could not be treated ;as a thief. He would be convicted .on I the charges to -which he pleaded guilty. ! Franklin and Robert Edward Cooper, S who was convicted last Friday, will 1 appear for sentence this afternoon.