CASE AGAINST FLORRIE CRICHTON.

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

CASE AGAINST FLORRIE CRICHTON.

REMARKABLE EVIDENCE. Florr'e Crichton was then charged with having on February 4th sold 'liquor without a license, contrary to j the Licensing Act. 1881, to one John S. Rowe. Mr W. J. Napier appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty. Sub-Vnspeetor Wilson conducted the prosecution. . John S. Rowe deposed that he was a district constable, and that on this occasion he was engaged in procuring evidence for "sly-grog" prosecutions. On the night of February 4th, he and another man. Bell, drove up in a cab to Mrs Crichton's place, near the back t'of the Supreme Court. They went ; first- to Julia. Wilson's place and an- ' other place but were not admitted, i Boyle, the cabman, then told witness he" could "fix him up" at Mrs Crichton's, and they went in there. Boyle introduced Bell and witness as two friends of his "from the country." and said they would stay there. Boyle was intoxicated. Mr Napier: Wasn't he drunk? Rowe: No. he was intoxicated. What is the difference between drunk and intoxicated? Rowe: Well, I reckon there are severa! stages of drunkenness—beastly drunk, half drunk, three-parts drunk, and the man that is intoxicated. (Laughter). A man who is drunk is a man that is incapable. In answer to Mr Napier witness proceeded to enlarge on the difference between, drunkenness and intoxication,- but'Mr -Hutchison, the Magistrate, in terposed abruptly: "This is all sophistry. If a man is intoxicated he is drunk." Rowe went on to depose that Boyle

asked Mrs Crichton if- she had any liquor. She said she only had stout.) In answer to another question she. said she had no whisky. She brought in a large bottle of stout. The three men had a glass each and Mrs Crichton half-a-glass. Witness put down 5/ on the table. Mrs Crichton's daughter took the money.up and gave it to the defendant. Cross-examined by Mr Napier: Witness led the cabman to believe he was going to the house for an immoral ; purpose. Witness was not asked for money; he put two half-crowns down on the table voluntary-. Mr Napier: You wanted to manufacture evidence for a. case, didn't you? i Rowe: No, I did not. j Mr Napier: What did you want 'then? | Rowe: I was sent there to get evidence for a prosecution. | Didn't you want to make evidence ■by putting the 5/ down on the table? j Rowe: Yes. ! Mr Hutchison: You didn't say the I money was for the beer? ! Rowe: No. I put it down and the I little girl picked it up .and she gave it to her mother. ; Mr Napier: You. took good care the : little girl didn't keep it then. You don't believe in giving money to little girls? I Rowe: No. j Air Napier: Oh, no; you're not built that way. Mr Hutchison: How did you comC to leave the house? Rowe: Well, ''it was this way, your worship. We arranged to come backon a future flight, but we didn't come back. Mr Hutchison: Oh, you told a lie then—another lie? Robert Bel], who described himself as a labourer, gave corroborative evidence. To the Bench he said no one asked for any money, and Rowe did not say what the money was for. Mr Napier: You are a confederate of Rowe's, are you not? Not altogether. I have worked with him in other cases. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr Napier submitted that there was no case to answer. i The information was dismissed.