ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CUSTOMS ACT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11481, 14 January 1903, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CUSTOMS ACT.

CHARGES AGAINST CHIXAMEX.

Ah Y«e and Lim Chun, on remand, ap p;urtd at tht- Magistrate's Court yest-er day, before Mr K. Bi-.tkun, S.M., on :

charge of havini;. on December 12th, i}t Springrieid, kept or concealed in their po*eession opium width was either uncustomed or prohibited, in contravention of section 210 of the Customs Law Consolidation Act, 1882 Mr (Veswell appeared for the Commissioner of Customs, and Mr Solomon, with iiim Mr Huban, for the accused. j Mr Cri.<well ttat-ed that owing to tho miscarriag*.' vi a telegram, he understood i that the defence were not prepared to go on with their ca.se, but weiv willing that tlw tvidentts for the prosecution should be taken. He also understood that Mr Solomon had a legai defence. Mr Solomon {Minted out tJiat the opium having been found in the possession ol tiw deftndants, the onus of proving that duty had been paid was thrown ujj-mi tlis uefeoce. • Mr Creswell said tha*: th« opium, it brought into the colony after October 25tt>, 1901, would be prohibited, and if prior, then it was uncustomed. Patrick Herbert, det:ct".vr. stated that with Detective Ward he had gene by train to Springfield with the defendants on December 12th. On arrival the defendants got oat, each carrying swags. Witness and Detective Ward, had asked them if they had any opium, to which they replied that they had not. He and Detective Ward had then j opened ono of tlw swags and found in it several tins of opium suitable for smoking. Asked where they had got it, accused had replied that they had got it from a whita man in Cliristchurch. They arrested defendants and brought them to Chrtstchursh. On examination of the swags thirty tins of opium and four pipes were found, and a pot of opium was found on the person of Lim Chun. It was difficult to «ay what tlw opium was worth. In some places £5 a tin could be got for it, and in others £6 per rin. Fifty shillings would be about the value of a tin in this city. The tins wc-ie wrapped up in rags, and some were in pillow case*. The defendants had stated that they had recently come from Wellington. To Mr Hoban—The big sack containing six tins and the four pipes was claimed by All Yee. Witness was positive that the Chinamen knew what he had said to them. He had been familiar with Chinese for forty years, and rarely failed to make them understand what he said to them. Detective Ward corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. His Worship intimated that he would heax counsel at any part of the hearing. Mr Solomon said he wished to place a legal defence before the Court. Hβ contended that section 273 of the Customs Law, Consolidation Act, 1882, advantage of the provisions of whioh the prosecution had taken in the procedure of ihe case, was only ppt to apply to the importers in whose possession uncustomed goods were femnd. Hβ pointed out that prior to the Opium Importation Act of 1901 opium could be imported into the colony, and duty had to be paid on it, but after October 26th, 1901, it was illegal to import opium suitable for smoking, and there, was no duty payable on it. If the opium found on defendants was imported after tho date mentioned, it was out of the question to call on them to prove that duty had been paid on it; whilst the charge of having in their posseesion articles prohibited was not in existence when the 1882 Act, under which the present proceedings were taken, came into operation. In order to prove to the Court, a prima facie caee, the Customs offidale must prove that defendants were in possession of an article op which duty wae payable; in the present case they had proved quite the reverse. He submitted that unless the Crown proved that the opium was not imported after October 25th, 1901, they could not leave the onus of proof to the defendants, lie contended, further, that all tlTo informations that could be joined were in the Act of 1882, and :be pointed out that the penalties provided in that Act and in the Act of 1901 were distinct and different. Mr Cresswell pointed out that in the Act of 1901 it was provided that it should be read with the Act of 1882 and schedule si in the last named Act, giving the form da whioh informations are to be laid, provided for persons being proceeded against for having "uncustomed or prohibited' , goods in their possession. Aβ to penalty, the CommiKsioner had decided to ask for the forfeiture of the opium and a fine of £100. The only way the defendants could prove their innocence was by showing that the opium was imported prior to October, 1901, and that duty had been paid on it.

Mr Solomon pointed out that under the 1901 Act the only offence was that of importing opium; there was no offence in being in possession of opium.

The case was at thig stage adjourned till nest Tuesday.