The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-05-01

Il barrel Port. .......... ...........% ~ u
. cases Castle {. {. sherry. Il q
. eases Hautebar........,.. ..... 50 q
10 cases MarCelSin.. ............. - n
. cases y Bis. Il Co. brandy. So y
S1,5OO O.
Which We're imported by. ......in the
vessels stated above on the......... day
off,. A. D., 1SS.
And Obhge your Obedient servants,
MACFARLANE x Co.
To the Colleetor-Generalo of Customs.
l. q. TewkSbury, ealled-I am store
keeper of the bonded warehouse. Col
lect duties and take charge of goods in
bonded StOreaouSe. Persons having
goods in bend draw them out by fill
ing up orders for what they want and
presenting the sane to me. Payment
OF duties, in these eases, is in cash, and
sometimes bonds are given. In some
cases goods are withdrawn without
payment of duties-orders endorsed
by His Majesty and members of the
Diplomatic Corps. Order presented 10
witness Exhibit Al. That Is an order
presented by the firm of G. w. Mae
farlaue Il Co.
| cannot say when | first saw the
order, it was probably, according TO
the date, September L, 1856, some two
or three days before that date. The
order WAS for the Withdrawal of Ger
tain liquors from the warehouse.
Blank forms for Withdrawals are put
in and shown to the jury. This
order, the black ink part, Is filled in
by Mr.. Lishman, clerk at G. W. Mae
taTlane's. The red ink figures are
mine. They indicate the rate of du-
ties The aggregate OF duties leviable
on these goods in the order Is 800 20.
No duties were paid on this order, be-
cause it was endorsed by C.. z. Iaukea.
H. N. Chamberlain. Another order
was submitted to the witness, exhibit
b. This order is dated December >.
1856; would say of it as | did of the
other; the goods were withdrawn by
q. W. Macfarlane x Co.; the amount
of duties leviabIe on the goods is
Sl,T49 81; no duty was paid on those
goods, because the order was endorsed
by His Majesty. Attorney General
proposed TO put in exhibit c., an order
drawn by Macfarlane & Co., and en-
dorsed by c. 2. Iaukea.)
Mr.. NeUmann objected to this paper
being put in evidence.
The question was argued by counsel.
Court ruled to admit the paper sub
jet to the evidence introduced to con-
meet it.
This exhibit c. Is an order drawn
by Macfarlane & Co.; the duties pay
able on the liquors in this order would
amount to Sl,5O9; duty paid on this
order was 50; the remaining 81, 800
was not paid, being endorsed by c. P.
Iaukea, H. NJ. Chamberlain; the goods
were delivered; from that time to the
present the duties on those goods have
not been paid; the goods belong
ed TO AIacfarlane Il Co. exhibit C.
and to G. W. Macfarlane & Co. lex
hibits A. and b.; these goods were
from foreign countries and
were dutiable.
CrOss-examined by Mr.. Neumann-
had other orders presented and en-
1Orsed by other parties. Orders are
presented on the blank form. The
custom of Withdrawals without pay
nent Of duties to the order Of II. VI.
and the Diplomatic Corps existed be-
.OTe my time.
Q.-Were there other orders of this
kind presented at the Custom House 4?
AttOTney-GeneraI objected to the
question as not relevant to the case.
Mr.. Neumann claimed that mer-
shandise has been withdrawn in a
similar manner in the ordinary course
If business during the period of these
transactions and for a long time pre-
-i0us, and this evidence is important
% prove the absence of criminal in
ent on the part of defendant, and
claimed that the goods delivered on
heSe orders We're not subject to duty.
AttOTney-General claimed that a
.OTupt practice of pIundering the |
prevailed in former years, but
le did not think that had anything to |
10 with the main question Of whether
defendant had entered into q wrongful |
The Court ruled to admit the ques-
ion.
Witness continued: Other goods |
ave been Withdrawn from the Gus |
ON House without payment Of duties,
n the order Of the King, the Govern
1ent or the Diplomatic Corps. De-
sndant never made any representa-
ions to me, Of any kind, asking me to
low any goods to 20 out without
ayment Of duties. Witness explain
d the word consumption on the
rider fOrms-t0 remain in the country,
nd not to be transhipped. Cannot
Az on what date these goods were de-
vered. The time between the receipt
f the order and the delivery Of goods
-Ould not be more than three DAYS.
here We're never any representations
lade to me, except this order, for the
sliyeTy OF the goods.
Q.-Were You misled or deceived by
ny of these three orders with refer
nee to the delivery Of these goods?
The question was objected to by the
ttOrney-GeneTaL.
Mr.. NeUmann said the defense pro-
Osed 10 prove by this question
neither any deception was practised
pom witness, a. a Custom House
ficer. Counsel put the question in a
.fferent form.
Q--Since the receipt Of this order
nd the delivery Of these goods, did
1u find out anything that would lead
1u To think that you were. deceived
that time2
This question was also objected to BY
.e Attorney-General and argued al
Myth. Il
The Court ruled that witness might
asked If he had learned ANYTHING ,