POSTAL REGULATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1917, Page 7

POSTAL REGULATIONS.

ALLEGED BREACH. At the New. Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Harry Holmes was charged with having on June 15, at Opunake, by means of a misstatement, namely, that hj« had enclosed two incomo-tax returns in a postal packet posted by him and addressed to the Commissioner of Taxes, Wellington, induced one William h. Morgan, a post office cadet, to deliver to F.im a postal packet sent 'by post and not addressed to or intended for him. Mr. A. H, Johnstone said ho had foeen instructed iby the defendant to plead guilty. The facts were that on the day in question Holmes posted his in-come-tax returns at Opunake, and afterwards, having come to the conclusion that he had made a mistake, went to the postmaster and asked him to give him back the packet in order that he might Teotify the supposed error. The postmaster refused, pointing out that to do so would be a breach of the postal regulations. Later, Mr. Holmes, who had been called up in the ballot and was consequently very much worried Over his affairs at the time, obtained the packet from a post olfice cadet, found that after all he had made no mistake, and re-posted the packet next day. Counsel submitted that the "section of 'the Act under which the information was laid was intended to apply to a man who wanted to get hcJd of another man's latter, and not to a man who only wanted to get back his own. No doubt Holmes had made a misstatement in tolling the cadet that the packet contained two returns, as it only contained one. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said the position Ava» that on the day in question, ; «bout 0 p.m., iMr. Holmes went to the 'postmaster and said he had posted a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Taxes, and thought he had made a misof £IOO in the return it contained. He made a suggestion to the postmaster that the letter should he handed back to him. The postmaster refused point blaqjc, referred to the regulations, and the whole position was made perfectly i'lear to Mr. Holmes. on, in the absence of the postmaster, Mr. Holmes approached a messenger boy, nnd by representing that he had posted two returns instead of one, induced the boy to give him the packet, which Mr. Holmes took, opened, and re-posted on the (following day. The present proceedings were taken under section 10D of the Act; had they been taken under section 108, and 'Holmes charged with inciting the boy to wilfully commit the offence, he would have been in a much more serious position. The serious aspect of the present case, however, was the serious position in which the boy had been placed, as he mas liable to two years' imprisonmeut. So far as Mr. Holmes was concerned, the police had c'verv reason to believe that he was a straightforward, honest business man. It was true he had just been called up at the time, and there was no reason to discredit his assurance that he was worried over his affairs. His Worship: The main fact is that he ' induced this lad to give him the packet rendering the lad liable to dismissal at ! least. I'am afraid the defendant war '■ carcleag as to what the result would , be to the, boy. [ Mr. Johnstone said he did not think 1 there was any likelihood of the boy beiaf prosecuted. ' .tjt>-Tnspeetor Mellveney said he cduu. ! giw no definite assurance aa to that. ', The official note was simply that the boy's conduct had been good, that he ' was not likely to commit the same of- ! fence again, and that no special punish- •■ ment was recommended. His Worship said he was afraid Mr. , Holmes had not considered the boy. He i had not attempted, however, (to get '. information about anyone else's affairs, but only about his own. The defendant would I* fined £3, with costs-7s. Had it not been for the tampering with the . boy the penalty would have been much smaller.