VANISHED SPIRITS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 334, 20 April 1928, Page 12

VANISHED SPIRITS

Liquor Theft on Wharves

CUSTOMS OFFICIALS INVOLVED

BOTTLES of liquor which were certified as breakages in the Customs examination shed at Auckland, had substantial ghosts in the Police Court yesterday afternoon. Sensational allegations were made concerning certain Customs officials who are said to have been pilfering liquor over a long period.

These revelations were made during the hearing of a case in which Robert Edward Cooper, aged 58, pleaded not guilty to four charges of stealing liquor valued at £3, and four alternative charges of receiving liquor know’ing it to have been stolen. Cooper was a receiving clerk in the employ of E. and H. Craig, carriers. His duty was to receive spirits for carta.ge; to help with the examination of the spirits; and to watch the weighing, gauging and bond markings. Defective-Sergeant McHugh said that the police had been engaged for some time investigating complaints in regard to liquor pilfering on the wharves. He and Detective Nalder made a raid on the lockers of all receiving clerks, and it was in Cooper’s locker that liquor was found. In a statement made to witness, accused said that when casks of spirits arrived they had to go to the customs examination shed for gauging and testing. When this was done, he had to see that the casks were sealed and sent away to the bond. He had to weigh all case whisky, and cases which did not make weight were put on one side, a customs officer later replacing broken bottles with full ones. A note was taken of broken bottles, and they were freed from duty. "It is a usual practice for the customs officer examining the cases to give the receiving clerk a bottle of spirits for himself,” said accused. "The examining officer usually takes a bottle for himself as well. “This practice has been going on for a long time.” The magistrate, Mr. W. R. McKean: No wonder there has been a shortage. Accused’s statement went on to detail where the liquor found in his possession came from. A bottle of rum had been given to him a week ago by a customs examiner named Martin King. BAD CERTIFICATE A certificate bearing King’s signature was then produced. It stated that seven bottles of a lot of 12 had been broken. “That can hardly be true,” said Mr. McHugh, “for two of the bottles said to be broken are in court.” KING’S EXPLANATION When Martin King was called to give evidence, the magistrate asked him how h© explained his certificate.

He said that bottles were thrown on the floor by receiving: clerks, and he certified that so many were broken. He denied that he had given a bottle to Cooper. Chief-Detective Hammond: Can you explain how bottles certified as broken are here? Witness: Someone must have taken them out before the case came to me. and put broken bottles back. The Magistrate: Could the bottles be changed by the receiving clerk? “Yes,” replied witness. The accused, in evidence, said that customs officers had been giving him liquor for three years. The bottles given to him were marked off as “breaks.” Mr. T. N. Holmden. who appeared for Cooper, made a plea for leniency. The system had been in vogue for years, and it was only now that accused realised the gravity of the position. The magistrate said there must be some truth in what Cooper had said. The .receiving clerk’s work was done in the presence of customs officers, and some seemed to have had poor sense of responsibility. The theft charges were dismissed, but accused was convicted on the receiving charges. He -was remanded to appear for sentence on Monday when another man will be before the court