A FIGHTING STOREKEEPER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 199, 20 February 1914, Page 6

A FIGHTING STOREKEEPER.

RESENTS CUSTOMS OFFICERS' SEARCH. Auckland, Wednesday. Joseph Wachner was charged in Court I .this morning that he assaulted J. IV | Ridings, Collector of Customs, and .1. 1 S. Higginson. Customs ollU'er, and obstructed them in (lie execution of their duty. The Customs Department staled that the two officers of the Customs Department went to search Waclmer's shop, because there was reason to believe that Wachner was selling to retail dealers cigarettes on which duty bad not been paid. The. ollicers were armed with proper authority to search, hut Wachner, when lie learned their mission, Hew into a great passion, called them thieves, and resisted the search. The Collector of Customs was sent for. and he arrived with a "writ of assistance." which was an authority giving him very far-reaching powers. This was explained to Wachner, but he simply became, infuriated, called the men expert thieves, instructing liis assistants to keep a close watch 011 their hands, and threatened to light them, while he assumed pugilistic attitudes. The burden of his complaint was that they must get a search warrant if they wished to ' search the premises, and he refused to 'recognise any other authority. The Collector of Customs then sent for a constable, whose appearance iliad the effect of quickly calming the shopkeeper and enabling the search to be proceeded with. No uncustomed goods were found on the premises. The Customs Department could have proceeded under the Customs Act, in which case the Magistrate would liavo 110 option but to impose imprisonment of not less than sixmonths. or more than nine months, but as 110 physical violence had been actually used the charge had not been laid finder the Customs Act. but in the ordinary way. What the Department to do was to warn Wachner | and other people of excitable temperaj mont that the authorities of the CusJ.toms officers rendered a search warrant J .unnecessary, and that such officers must. I not he obstructed or insulted when thev ' 'Were doing their duty. The defendant was convicted ami ordered to pay £4 •Us fld costs, as the offence was lot 'likely to be repeated, and as 110 uncustomed goods had been found in the place.