ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the "New Zealander."

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 562, 3 September 1851, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the " New Zealander."

Sm,— ln the recent case of " Guilding (of H. M. Customs) versus O'Neill," the point at issue was whether all goods included in an entiy must be confiscated, on account ofapauiul misdescripuon contained in that entiy. The Counsel for the defence, ihe Resident Magistrate, and yourself, appear to think such a reading of the law would lead to results "intolerable and absurd, and that the lorieituie must refer only to the individual articles impioperly described." I quite agiee that the enforcement of such a law might often be unjust, but 1 also think when I quote the woids ot the Ordinance, you will agiee that the law docs piesciibe total, and not paitinl confisca'ion. The pernicious tendency of laws canied into extreme effect is not the test of their validity. A. Resident Magistrate, in his hybrid Court of Law and Equiiy, where summaiy jurisdiction, under no fejr of appeals, can be arbitral tly exercised in all civil cases, (where the debt eUimed exceeds not twenty pounds, though thousands of pounds may have been originally involved,) and in some cihniual cases of felony, (wlicic impiisonment for two ye.us may he inflicted, — a power, equal I believe, 10 the qi palest in that respect given— alter a trial bj jury,— to a Judge ot the Supieme Couit) *, or a Suiveynr-Gencral, under the Native Land Purchase Ordinance, by which, cutting a walking stick, or pitching a tent on native lands, can make you liable to a penalty of a hundred pounds. — might indeed render those laws "intolei able and absurd,' 1 but would not on that account negative the plain meaning of their words The woids in the Customs Ordinance, Session 1, No. 3, Litter part of clause 22. are as follows:— '* And any goods taken or delivered out of any ship, or out of any warehouse, by vutue of any entiy or watrant, not corresponding or agreeing in all such lespects, or not properly desciibmg the same, slnll be deemed to be goods landed or taken without due entry thereof, and shall be forfeited." Does not "entry or warrant' 1 necessarily refer to " coirespondmg or agreeing in all such 1 espects, ornot propetly desciibing the same" — and is not the sentence " any goods taken, &c, byvntue of any entry," nominative to " shall be forfeited?" Granting this, and the plain meaning of English grammar, must it not be acknowledged that all goods, described in an entry, partially jaulty as to descnption, must, according to the existing law, be on that account forfeited. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Aliquis. Sept. 1, 1851.