SLY GROG-SELLING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 42, 19 February 1900, Page 5

SLY GROG-SELLING.

POLICE COURT CASES. ONE CONVICTION AND TWO DISCUSSALS. STRONG REMARKS BY THE BENCH. BOW THE POLICE OBTAIN EVIDENCE. Three cases of alleged slj-grog selling were dealt with by Mr Thos. Hutchison, S.M., at the Police Court today. In two of these, the charges against Mrs Mary Dooley and Irene Stewart, of selling liquor without a license, the evidence had been taken last Friday. Mr W. J. Napier appeared for the defendants. Mr Hutchison gave written judgment in these two cases as follows: — "The matter of the information — the illicit, sale of liquor—is sought to be established by the evidence of three men, who it is very plain, were leagued together to induce the defendant to mako a sale. Rowe, the leader, it appears is a district constable who performs police functions at Hobscnville. The other two are men picked up about town. Both of these describe themselves as 'labourers," though again it is quite clear that I neither, has done any work for a considerable time past, if ever. One of them, Bell, who has previously been associated with Rowe in business cf l tliis kind, has on his own showing nut done any honest work since December, when he appeared in this Court in a similar capacity to the present. The other, Thornton, lives on his accumulated capital which he keeps in his pocket. It may conceivably be part of Rowe's duty to detect breaches .of the law. I cannot imagine that it is the concern of these two so-called labourers. The whole of them inspire rue with 'the utmost distrust. Nor is this feeling lessened by the evidence which they give. They agree in this— than by an organised system of lying and duplicity they obtained as'the result of a game of cards, a glass of beer each. from the defendant, but they agree in little else. Upon the details incidental to their plan of campaign they contradict one another, so that if you take one man's version as a whole, you must reject the others' and vice versa; and Mr Napier contends that where you find men admittedly endeavouring to achieve an end by systematic lying and deceit you cannot have any confidence in believing them on oath—a proposition of undeniiWle cogency. With such material as this j feel I must have some corroborative proof. Indeed, it is plain that, as a matter of: law, apart from the impression which it in fact leaves upon my mind, the evidence of these men ought to have some corroboration, for whether they are, as Mr Napier urges, participes criminis, indeed, actually instigators of a sale; or whether they are in the category of mere purchasers, the result is the same, in the one case the invariable practice is to require coroboration, in the other the Licensing Act. while enacting that their evidence is admissible, only allows it to base a connection, if otherwise good, a provision which seems to me to be framed for just such a case as this, where the liquor is purchased, if at all, for some ulterior purpose. In either pase caution is necessary. Wch. is the testimony of these men made otherwise good? The defendant tendered her own evidence. From this it appeared that beer was supplied to these men by her, and that she accepted at least one shilling therefor. The explanation by which she sought to meet this fact was halting and inadequate. Moreover, she failed to establish that she. was Rowe's agent in the purchase of the beer. Then it was proved by independent and reliable evidence that the result of a search on the defendant's premises was to discover a large quantity of beer—2o bottles of beer and a bottle of whisky—a quantity which, havingregard to the circumstances of the defendant at the time, among others the fact that she was the sole occupant of the house, which was adjacent to two public houses, must be taken as prima facie evidence of an illegal traffic. This collateral fact, and the admissions of the defendant, help out. a case which the evidence of Rowe and his confederates alone would not sufficiently establish. £ 10 and costs. "Mrs Dooley is convicted and fined "In Irene Stewart's case, I have the same class of evidence—that of Rowe and his two satellites—the same obi jeet in view sought to be attained by the same system of lying, and characterised by the same contradictions in detail,' but I have nothing else. I There is not even any proof that the I defendant actually received payment for any liquor.- From what T have before said, it will be understood that, apart from any legal proposition, T am not. prepared to stretch the evidence of these men one single iota beyond what appears on its face, nor to ' draw any inference that is not obvious ;to supply its deficiencies. The inforj niation against Irene Stewart is disj missed." ..