IN BANCO.

Auckland Star, Volume IV, Issue 1203, 11 December 1873, Page 3

IN BANCO.

m'abtiicb. shera and co. v. m'kellar,

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who arc merchants in Auckland, against the late Collector of Customs in Auckland to recover the sum of £104, being the difference between the duty on certain imported^goods, calculated on the old and new tariffs. -. \ , Mr Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General with Mr Brookfield for the defendant.

Mr Whitaker detailed the circumstances of the case, which are as follow : The i ship Endymion arrived in harbour on the 18th July. On the 19fch she entered at" the Customs, and on the 22nd Messrs McArthur and Shera being'importers j of the goods under dispute made the necessary Bight entries in accordance with tho 51st,-52nd and 53rd section of the Aot. The pooda were not. landed till after the 30th Jnly. The arnbunt of duty tendered by the firm upon the goods' was £262 3s 2d, being calculated upon cthe old tariff. Tho Collector demanded ;£366'18s- 3d, being the amount under the new^tariff, and that sum was paid. t The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged ' that the main question really was—when did the Afit'l' sof 1873 come into force? There were two'points arising out of this Act. The other point rested upon the exact meaning of the words," on importation into New Zealand." EvGnjif the Act came into force on the 30th July, then he maintained that it could have no application to the goods in question. The^.ct did not pass till the I9bh August. Now was this Act retrospective in its effects ? He thought not. In fact the Interpretation Act laid it down plainly that an Act could not come into f oroe till the date of its passing. The Customs Act 1858, section 31, practically ' settled the question of the exact time of the act of importation being complete. There it ■was laid down that such time should be deemed tabethetimeat which the ship came within the, limrfjs' of the' port, and the goods be dischafged. He contended that the duty was clearly payable Jon the 18th July. The 'Attorney-Goheral replied to Mr Whitakeris arguments. It was admitted he was glad to perceive that the Customs Act and the Tariff Act were to be read together in order to arrive at a correct reading of the' law. Ho1 thought there were several claused which had to bo woighed before it r could be determined what was tho proper date 6f ini> portation. It was quit? true that the words stood, " on Importation into Now Zealand," buthe contended that tho importation was not completed until the ontries had been perfected and the'goods discharged. In tho explana> tion read by" Mr Whitaker sufficient stress had not been laid upon tho concluding words, which ho held quite altered tho legal signification of the clause. Tho loarned gentleman quoted the 28th section of the English Act to show that the time of levying/duty on goods was the time when they were entered for home consumption, wlrlclr time, in the present ease, was the 27th of August. Ho was of opinion that there, was authority for; any Actnaming a previous time from which it was to be considered in force. The deposit to be paid at the time fof sight-ontry could not in any way bo considered payment of duty. The Attorney-General concluded a long and close argument by affirming that the now tariff was tho standard by which alone tho duty could havo been legally assessed. Mr Whitaker having replied, His Honor took time to consider the judgment, m ......

The Court then rose