Wilson DJ:

(1) On account of certain suspicions some officers of the Monopolies Departments were posted to watch the premises of the appellant who was accused No. 4 in DC 1592/32. I accept their version of what they saw.

(2) At 6.30 a.m. on 4 August 1932 a lorry drove up to the premises. The appellant helped to carry two baskets of vegetables into the shop. When the men accompanying the lorry saw the Revenue Officers they tried to escape thus proving their guilty knowledge. Similarly the accused locked the door leading into the back part of his premises and was seen throwing the bag containing a motor tube of bukit samsu over the party wall into the back yard of the next door house.

(3) No question of a plant can therefore arise. Accused took in the liquor himself and got rid of it without examining it proving he was expecting liquor and knew what the bag contained.

(4) The petition of appeal says that the conviction is bad in law. All Magistrates will be grateful to the Judges of the Supreme Court if they will consider making it a rule of practice that legal points to be raised on appeal should be set out in the petition. A normal sentence of mine was needlessly reduc