AUCKLAND NEWS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3064, 5 March 1892, Page 2

AUCKLAND NEWS.

(BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT)

Auckland, Last Night. Thb Crown Lands Board passed a resolution supporting the application to set aside Lot 19, Whatawhata, as a Public Hall site. It was agreed to allow Mr Millar, of Onewhero, to relinquish part of his deferred payment section, so that the site might be acquired for a creamery. It was resolved to inform the Government that the Alexandra Town District Board, in which Lot 513, Bint Alexandra, is vested, has been merged intu the Waipa County Council. The Board of Education tn-day resolved to inform tho Minister of Education that the Board is prepared to take over tho Native schools at £5 capitation on the roll attendance or £7 capitation on the average attendance. An application was granted by Mr J ustice Connollyjn Chambers, this morning, for a special jury of twelve to try an action brought by the Commissioner of Customs against Shnrland and Co. (Limited), wholesale chemists and druggists. The statement of the claim filed sots out that the defendant Company imported by the steamship Tainui four packages of goods, which were entered at the Custom House as "four cases drußffist's sundries ;" that the defendant Company entered the said goods as value £80, and paid the requisite duty upon the same ; that the giods wern subsequently examined by the proper officers of the Customs before delivery, and were diecorered to be patent proprietary mediciDß3 ( known as ''Mother Siegel's Pills," of the valuo of £653, upon which amount the defendant Company ought to have paid duty. Plaintiff, therefore, claims to recover the sum of £1900, being treble the value of the goods, as provided by the 90th section of the Act. The plaintiff further says that the defendant Company on October 20th, 1891, imported two packages, which were entnred at the Custom House, Auckland, as " two cases patent medicines,' such goods being "Mother Siegel's Pills," and value £40; that the said two packages were of the value of £326. Wherefore, the plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant Company tho sum of £980, being treble the value of the goods.