TO GO TO TRIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 129, 13 March 1936, Page 6

TO GO TO TRIAL

ALLEGED SALES OF LIQUOR. CASES AGAINST A. J. TEMPLEMAN « , TWO CHARGES HEARD TO-DAY/ The case against Archibald John Templeman, charged with having sold liquor when he did not have a * icen ®f to do SO; was brought before Mr O. R. Orr Walker, S.M., in the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court this morning after several adjournments. Accused was represented by Mr F. D. Sargent, who entered a plea of not guilty. . , He was further* charged that lie had been once previously convicted in five years. Sergeant J. F. Cleary asked that the second charge be amended to read “twice previously” convicted. The Magistrate: That gives him the right of trial by jury. Mr Sargent: That is so, sir. Accused elected to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. Counsel said he thought it was only a question of the degree of punishment that the second charge was laid, but it would be unfair to send it on to the Supreme Court. It might prejudice the man on his trial. The Magistrate said that some juryman, or the judge himself, might ask why accused had elected to he dealt with by jury. It was almost bound to come out.

Counsel: It won’t matter, anyway, because the jury will probably find him not guilty! The Magistrate: As far as I am concerned now, he is not guilty. Thomas dark, labourer, residing at Lyttelton, said that on Uctober 24, he met a man nam.ed Ted Atkinson, but he could not remember at what time except that it was in the morning. He met him close to accused’s home. He asked Atkinson to have a drink. They went to a shed at accused’s place. It was not occupied then. Later he bought a bottle of beer from accused, paying Is 9d. The contents were consumed on the premises. Accused was known to witness as “Hughie.’’ A second bottle was bought, Atkinson finding the money for both. Lights Put Out. Thomas Edward Atkinson, labourer, residing in William Street, Ashburton, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. He had been at accused’s place the day before that, remaining till the lights were put out. The Magistrate: What lights ? Sergeant Cleary!: The lights in the shed. The Magistrate (to witness): Oh, not your lights! Witness! said that the next he knew was accused coming into the shed. Witness asked if he had any beer and a bottle was handed over. Witness drank the contents. The next he remembered was that several people went in and out and Clark he remembered particularly. They consumed some liquor purchased from accused. Clark took the money from witness and went outside to get the beer. That was 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. Witness had several more drinks during the day, accused serving it on each occasion. It- was all paid for. Later, witness’s wife went to the shed. Accused was there before she left the premises. Witness did not leave with Ms wife, but waited for about an hour. Lucy Ellen Atkinson, wife of the previous witness, stated that she went to accused’s premises to look for her husband, who had not been home all night. She reached there at noon and asked accused if her husband was there. Accused replied: “Yes, he’s just come here.” Witness replied: “Don’t tell lies; he’s been here all night.” Accused then walked to the shed, and witness went in with him. Her husband was on a form, very much under the influence of liquor. Witness added that accused said: “Come on, Ted, you’d better get awqy out of this,” A second man in the shed, mocked her when she spoke to her husband. ' During the Raid. Constable T, W. Round said he went to accused’s premises at 3.7 p.m., having a search warrant issued as a result of certain information he had obtained. Sergeant Cleary and Constables Myers and Moore were also present. Witness went into the premises from the rear, accompanied by Constable Moore. Entering the shed, he saw three men, Frank Choate, Clark and Williams, there. Choate was sitting on the table. He had a tumbler of beer beside him. Williams and Clark were on a form beside the table and each had a cup in front of him. They drank in the presence of the police. A fourth man, James Urquhart, entered the shed, closely followed by accused. Witness asked Urquhart what he was doing on the premises. Three empty beer bottles were on the table. They held fresh dregs of beer. There were several wet circular marks which appeared to have been made by bottles and containers. He found dregs of beer in the cups and in the tumbler. Constable J. E. R. Myers said he found in the kitchen of the house, Mrs Templeman, Lorna Templeman and a man named Rooke. He asked for accused and Mrs Templeman went to a nearby room, where accused was lying on a couch. Asked if he had any beer on the premises, accused replied: “Only a few this time.” Witness made a search and in a back room he found two bottles of ale and a bottle of stout. Accused said he did not know how the liquor got there. In the pantry, witness found 53 beer and stout bottles, empty, a port wine bottle, three lemonade bottles and three whisky half-bottles. Asked to account for the empty bottles, Mrs Templeman said: “It has nothing to do with me, you’ll have to ask Archie.” Accused was asked the same question and he said “he didn’t know.” Counsel: Did he say that he had no statement to make at that stage? Witness: Hq - may have said that after saying he “did not know.” [Sergeant Cleary gave evidence in corroboration. Accused was committed for trial. He reserved hi 3 defence. He was granted

hail of £SO in his own cognisance, and two sureties of £25 each, or one of £SO. Counsel objected to the formal swearing of evidence, regarding the previous convictions on the ground that it would prejudice accused on his trial. The objection was upheld. Second Charge Laid, Templeman was then charged with having sold liquor on February 10 without having a license to do so. Accused pleaded not guilty and electto be dealt with by the Supreme Court. William Bell, labourer, residing at Fairton, said he received some beer from accused on the day in question, having bought it. There were six bottles, later marked by witness. He paid 10s for them at accused’s home. To counsel: He was taking them to the home of a man named Tait. He had one bottle of home brew with him as well.

Sergeant L. T- Moore, of Christchurch, who was on relief duty in Ashburton at the date stated, said that he was in charge of a police party that searched accused’s premises. A± ’1.40 p.m. he called at accused’s house, where he was admitted by the back door. Accused was lying on a single bed in a front room. He wanted to know who witness was, and having been told refused to see the warrant, which was read to him. Accused then read it. Asked if he had sold any liquor that day, because witness had it on good authority that he had, accused said: “I have sold no liquor to anyone to-day.” In the bathroom three full bottles of beer were found, and 10 full bottles of stout. They were rolled up in paper separately and all in a sugar-hag. In the pantry there were 11 full bottles of beer, 21 empty beer and stout bottles were in a cupboard. Two empty wine bottles, two empty lemonade bottles, and two full bottles of lemonade were there also. “Does Not Belong to Me.” The liquor was placed on the kitchen floor. Accused was still in his bed. He was invited to be present at a count of the bottles, but he said he did not wish to be present. Asked to account for the number of bottles on the place, accused said: “The liquor does not belong to me. I know nothing at all about it.” Accused was then invited into his wife’s bedroom, where Constable Myers questioned Mrs Templeman regarding the, liquor. Mrs Templeman was about to explain, but was prevented by accused saying: “Yes, go on, talk and get me into trouble” Mrs Templeman said: “Well, Archie, you know that when a quantity of liquor came here recently I wanted them to take it away, and you would not allow it.” Later, when asked if they wanted to make any explanation of the presence of the liquor, neither would say anything. The shed at the back of the house was searched and three empty beer bottles were found on the table ,with three caps, two openers and 11 caps. There was another empty bottle on the floor, Ahe cups contained fresh dregs of beer, and beer had been spilled on the table and on the floor. From the appearance of the room it was obvious that a hurried exit had been made. The electric light was burning. There were no lights burning in the house when witness arrived there. Corroborative evidence was given oy Constable Myers. Constable R. P. Chibnall also gave evidence on similar lines. Counsel again formally objected to evidence regarding previous convictions being given. . The Magistrate said that only the judge would see the depositions, luey would not go before tfie Grand Jury or "tho jury. J. W. Pooley, Clerk to the Magistrate’s Court, produced the record book showing that two convictions were entered against accused on May A--1935, when he was charged with having sold liquor without having a license to do so (two counts). Accused pleaded not guilty, and. ieserved his defence. He was committed to the Supreme Court at Christchurch for trial, and hail was granted as m the first case. Found on Premises. Arising out of the first ease heard against Templeman, four men were charged with having been found on premises when liquor w&s seized dur-, ing a police raid. Two of the cases were adjourned till April 24. James Urquhart did not appear. Constable J. Moore stated that lie found defendant on the premises of Archibald John Templeman when a search warrant was executed. ' Defendant had said he had business with Templeman, but would not say what the business was. Constable Myers gave evidence in regard to a second charge against defendant. Defendant was fined £2 with 10s costs on each charge. William Henry Williams pleaded not guilty. Constable Round stated that he was at Templemap’s premises when a search warrant was being executed. Defendant was sitting on a form at a table with a cup containing beer before him. He drank from the cup. He stated that he went to the premises to borrow some tobacco and have a talk. He did not recollect telling defendant to drink from a bottle. There was nothing in the bottle. He would not deny that he said “Drink up.” . Defendant: Thank you. I wouldn’t have drunk it if you hadn’t told me to. Defendant said he had been told by Templeman that he (Templeman) was going to try to grow tobacco. He took some seed to the premises, a girl taking it in to Templeman, who was in bed. He did not buy liquor, and did not drink any till the constable told him to drink it. The Magistrate: You wore not unwilling. Defendant: J can do without it sir. He added that he had been in the shed about five minutes when the police arrived. F. H. Choate stated that he was present on the occasion mentioned. When the police arrived, Constable Round said “‘Drink that up.” Williams

drank beer given him by witness. The Magistrate said he could not accept the evidence. Defendant was fined £2, with 10 costs. Defendant: What’s the imprisonment, sir? The Magistrate: That will follow m due course.