EVASION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 11 August 1909, Page 41

EVASION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES

WEDDING PRESENI FORFEITED. WELLINGTON, August 3. When Mr James Baldwin, chief officer of the s.s. Kaitangata, was coming ashore last evening Trith a parcel under his arm, he was stopped by a Customs official. In the Magistrate's Court to-day he was charged with bringing ashore goods on which duty had not been paid. He pleaded " Guilty." Mr R. W. Jackson, who defended, stated that defendant had not acted wilfully. The parcel was a case of carvers, which had been given to him by his fellow-officers as a wedding present. He had just set up a home in Wellington, and was removing the gift from the ship. The duty was only 4*. Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., paid the court had no option but to enter a conviction, and defendant must be fined £3, thiee times the value of the goods, which would be forfeited. In answer to Mr Jackson. ULs Worship stated that under the extenuating ciicumstances, no doubt if representation was, made to the Minister of Cu.>toni« the defendant might be allowed to retain \m&session oi the geeds. Augu.-t 6. Mr W. ft. Riddcll, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the Magi.-trate's Court to-day in the ca.se in winch the Collector of Customs prosecuted Cacil Haughton, third engineer of the ?.s. Manuka, for harbouring iinnis-tomed goods. His Worship stated that defendant had had in his possession a pet of furs valued at £4. He had declared hi* dutiable goods, but had not, included the fins, which he said lie was taking to Dunudin. He also stated that he had no intention of evading the Customs. The defence was that, firstly, Haughton did not know tliat the goods' were dutiable, and. seiondly, that Dunedin. and not Wellington, was the place where the wore to be unshipped. To hiN Worship the former defence did not appear -ound. Defendant knew perfectly well that the rood-- weie in his poT-etsion, and whether they were dutiable or not was a question oi Jaw — .in old iaw, with which defendant should have been acquainted. The n»tie statement thai he was not so acquainted was not sufficient. There was, his Worship thought, sufficient knowledge on the part of the dHendant to bring him under the section of the act. On t*ie second point raided, hi^ YA oi^hip mentioned that the goods weie not consigned to a particular poit. and it seemed to him that in such a ca--e where duty was lequhed it v.oulJ be due at the first port of call. Defendant miM be convicted, and would be nned £312 H ; s Worship ?aid that if the Custom* authorities had asked for a penalty of £100 in-tead of ju«t tieble the value of the furs a reduction might have been allowed. His Worship accoidingly held that defendant mutt pay the full amount of the penalty. The iura were forfeited*