-3-
492
Section 17:
Objection was taken in the Legislative
Council to the wording of sub-section (1) section 17. It
be was pointed out that if a ship were chartered it woulqunfair to impose on the owners any obligation with regard to the discharge of dutiale tobacco from the ship. It was point- ed out that the phrase, though perhaps not strictly correct,
728 a compendious one, that it was impossible to think that proceedings would be taken against the owers in such a case, and that they could clear themselves by means of the latter part of sub-section (2). It was also pointed out that a similar phrase appears in previous ordinances passed by the Council.
Section 24(2):
seems to be reasonable.
The onus cast by tais sub-section
Sections 27 and 28: The same objection was made to
these sections as to section 17. The discussion of the
point took place at the same time with regard to all three
sections.
to
Sections 40/46; In these sections, the Opium Ordinance 1914, has beenfollowedas it is fuller than the Tiquors Con- solidation Ordinance, 1911. The provisions might perhaps have been shortened by re-arrangement but it was thought bet- ter to keep to the firm of the sections already in existence,
Section 57: This section is new and is intended to provide a mode of service on a body corporate or firm, and a mode of appearance for a body corporate or firm served. It will be noticed that "person" in this ordinance includes a
firm.
First and Second Schedule P The duty on tobacco will be collected in the same way as the duty on intoxicating liquors. The system works well in the case of liquors and
!