RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 663, 26 May 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

WEDNESDAY, May 25. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) BREACH OP CUSTOMS AMENDMENT ACT. William Lloyd was charged by William Sydney Munday, collector of customs, Westport, with having, on the 13th inst., made and subscribed a false entry, describing two crates as containing earthenware only, the contents of same being earthenware, china, and glassware, thereby incurring a penalty of £IOO. The defendant asked for an adjournment to enable an application to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs, accompanied with a letter from Mr Munday requesting that the case be withdrawn.

The Collector of Customs consented and the case was adjourned to the 25th proximo.

J. G. Hay appeared to answer a charge of having indirectly caused a false entry to be made on the 13th inst, by not having sufficiently instructed his agent, William Lloyd. William Sydney Munday, Collector of Customs, said: On the 11th of May an entry was tendered to witness by Mr Lloyd as agent for the importer, Mr Hay. The entry was a prime entry for two crates earthenware. When the entry was taken I found an error in the computation for duty, which was afterwards corrected by Mr Lloyd. I asked Mr Lloyd if the crates contained nothing but earthenware, and he answered that he believed not. He said that Mr Hay in ad informed him, that there were two crates of earthenware coming by the Northern Light from Melbourne, and had asked him to pass entries for them. Mr Hay subsequently left the invoices with Mr Lloyd. I believe Mr Lloyd was very busy that day. I asked Mr Lloyd if he had the invoice, and he said "yes" and tendered the invoice. I looked at it and again asked him what the contents of the crates were. He answered, he believed them to be earthenware. I saw from the invoice that the crates contained also china and glassware and on examiuing the packages I found the contents to be as stated in the invoice.

By the Bench: The power to bring this action is delegated to me. I have the government authority dated Jan. 11th 1867. By the defendant: Ido not believe Mr Lloyd passed the entry knowing it t© be false. He paid me the money. I seized the goods and examined them three days afterwards. Defendant stated that on the morning of the 11th instant, he asked Mr Struthers if he saw Mr Lloyd to request him to look after the goods in the Northern Light. He saw Mr Lloyd about a quarter of an hour afterwards engaged in conversation with Mr Struthers. He went into the latter's shop, and without comment placed invoice and bill of lading on the counter, a few feet from where Mr Lloyd was standing. He considered that was sufficient instruction, in fact it was all the information it was possible to give short of examining the crates.

William Struthers corroborated portions of Hay's statement. Wm. Lloyd, Custom-house agent,

sworn, said: There was no conversation on May 11th between ua until the mistake occurred.

By Prosecutor: Mr Hay had spoken to me a fortnight before. He said he had some earthenware coming per Northern Light, which he would get me to pass, and I could call for the invoice and bill of lading when the vessel arrived.

His Worship stated that the case was more difficult to deal with in consequence of the charge against Mr Lloyd not having been heard ; in any case, he should have to consult the Act more fully, before adjudicating. He should postpone decision until the other case had been dealt with, and Mr Hay would have to enter upon his own recognisance to appear on the 25th pros.

ASSATJLT. Brown v. Lyon—The complainant charged Lyon with having assaulted him on the 23rd inst., ard sought that he should find surety to keep the peace.

Complainant, sworn, said : On Monday last I was walking up Kennedy street with a child in my arms when I met defendant near to Mr Patterson's store. Defendant said to me " what about the £6 15s you sold the store for." I replied that was my business, and with that he hauled off and struck me in the face. Two witnesses were present. Defendant had previously threatened me on two occasions.

By defendant: I am a miner, and have followed that occupation two months. lam at present under committal for fraudulent bankruptcy. The sum of £6 15s you referred to was the proceeds of a store I sold. Tou did me no serious harm when you struck me.

J. S. Pleming and W. J. Patterson both stated that they saw complainant and defendant together at the time and place stated, but saw no blow struck, and although they heard conversation, did not gather the tenor of it. Their attention was directed to the parties by Brown's saying, and addressing them, " Tou see that ?"

Defendant stated : Brown had been storekeeping at Christmas Terrace and had assigned his estate to D. Leslie. Defendant had done packing for him, and it having come to his knowledge that goods that had not been accounted for, had been disposed of by the complainant, he had advised him to hand the money over, so as to escape prosecution. He had always given him advice, and had not assaulted him.

His Worship inflicted a fine of 403 and costs, and dismissed the application that defendant should be bound over to keep the peace.