A DERELICT TARPAULIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 March 1919, Page 6

A DERELICT TARPAULIN.

PROCEEDINGS UNDER CUSTOMS ACT. The story of a canvas tarpaulin ajtd the conjecture as to it 3 ownership, which has been before the court and the public on former occasions, was yesterday unfolded before the Magistrate, Mr A. Crooke, S.M., under the guise of being uncustomed goods, of which Samuel JMward Doyle was alleged to have been found in possession, on April 27, 1918 Mr R B. D. Eyre, Collector of Customs, conducted the prosecution, which was laid under section 223 of the Customs Act. Mr A. H. Johnstone appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the prosecution was similar to that which ha 3 already been brought out. in the court, jscept that the Collector of Customs '.-xereised his right under the Act of calling the defendant to give evidence. Samuel Edward Doyle admitted that he had a package similar to the canvas produced, removed from the wharf. He stated that it was not covered with scrim, as other witnesses had alleged, but they r.wld see what was in the package. He stated that a seaman belonging to the Kaituna haji left the canvas with him to sell, He had no knowledge as to whether duty was paid on it or not.

Mr Johnstone submitted that the case must be didinissed, as no proof had been given that the goods were uncustomed. The definition of uncustomed goods was that they were goods on which duty is due as»d payable and has not been paid on them. There had been no proof that the canvas was dutiable.

Mr Eyre interjected that he could soon get evidence of that. Mr Johnstone pointed out that it was too late now that the case for the prosecution had been closed.

Defendant was again called and stated that the man on the Kaituna was boatswain, and on the day the vessel was leaving New Plymouth, asked witness if he would try and dispose of the canvas for him. This he subsequently did. He admitted having told an untrue story to the police when interviewed by them. . The account of the canvas he now gave was the only knowledge be had respecting it. An argument, then ensued between Mr Johnstone and Mr Eyre as to whether Doyle knew the goods were uncustomed. Mr Johnstone contended that Doyle had no means of knowing whether the goods were customed or not. Mr Eyre submitted that the onus was on defendant, to prove that the goods were not uncustomed. Mr Johnstone argued that if that was the case he (counsel) might as well be asked to prove that the suit, of clothes he was wearing was customed »oods, which he would be quite unable to do.

While admitting that it seemed from the Act that Mr Johnstone might be asked to give such proof, the Magistrate said the defendant had satisfied him that he did not know the goods in question were dutiable, and he therefore dismissed the information.

Doyle was then charged with removing certain goods from the wharf, which were subject to the control of the Cust»ms, without the consent of the Customs officials. He was also further ehaiged with landing certain goods, without a proper entry being made. He pieiided not guilty to each charge. The Collector of Customs gave evidence that when the Kaituna entered New Plymouth last April her manifest di. closed no sueh goods in her cargo as the canvas tarpaulin. Such ships"ußUally had a general permit for landing g< uds, but no such permission was issued by the local Customs office. Further, when the Harbor Board had goods coming in they always had a permit for their landing made out, but no permit was given to them to land a tarpaulin. He also stated that all coastwise goods landed were subject to the control of the Customs, whether Bubject to duty or not. The ship's papers and a copy of the Customs tariff, showing the canvas to bo subject to duty, were put in by W. P. Kellehor, Customs clerk at New Plymouth. Mr Johnstone contended that as no proof had been given that the wharf at Moturoa was a properly'gazetted landing place under the Customs Act, there could be no offence until that was done. He submitted that as the offence was a highly penal one, the matter should be fully proved in the proper manner. Mr Eyre referred to the objection as a fanciful one, but the bench held that such proof was necessary, and the prosecution was allowed time to produce the official gazette required. The hearing was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day. The charge with respect to fending goods was dismissed.