SLY GROG-SELLING.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8934, 26 October 1894, Page 6

SLY GROG-SELLING.

At Aioberley yesterday, before Mr F. W. Bishop, S.M., David Joseph Scott, boarding-house keeper, Cheviot, was charged dq the information of the police with having 9n October 3tb unlawfully sold four glasses of wtiskey to one William Coakley contrary o section 159 of the Licensing Act, 1894. Mr Inspector Brohara prosecuted; Mr voa Haaat appeared for the defence. The plea was *' Not guilty." Mr Broham said defendant had erected a large house for an hotel in expectancy of obtaining a license, which the Committee refused at the annual meeting. From information obtained the police liad searched the house, and found a larger quantity of liquor than usual and intended to prove sales. He called Arthur Benn, who deposed that he was in the employ of the Government. On Sunday night, October 7th, he stayed with E imend Ford, his mate, it Scott's boarding-house. Next day went n to breakfast, which was not quite ready. Ford came in, and afterwards W. Coakley. Ford said he could do with a drink if Coakley could get one. Ford gave Coakley 3s. Coakley went out, and witness *nd Ford and another went to the bar. Coakley called for four whiskies, which Mrs Scott supplied. The four of them had the liquors and Mrs Scott took the 2s for it. Did not see defendant. Did not dee where the liquor was drawn from. Only saw it in the four glasses. To Mr yon Haast—Was employed to trace out sly grog selling. Was sent with Ford to Cheviot for that purpose. Had never been in gaol. Arrived in Cheviot on Saturday. Saw Mr Scott at the hotel, and asked him if he had *ny lemonade or ginger beer. He said he had nothing to drink on the place. He said he had no license to sell any drinks. Did not ask Mrs Scofct for a drink on Sunday. Asked Mr Scott, after paying for his lodgings, for a drink. Defendant said he would shout; one, bub could take no money. I»Witness at the store bought some painkiller, which he drank. Had not been on the "booze" in Christchurch before that, but had been drinking and was very thirsty. Witness did not drink the painkiller on the road at the creeks, but Ford did. Told the coachdriver there was no drink to be gob at Cheviot. This was an untruth. Coming down from Cheviot stayed at Waipara, but was not drunk there. He left Ford there. Could not say if Ford was drunk at Waipara. It was Coakley suggested getting the drink. Ford gave him the money. Coakley called Mrs Scott from the dining-room door, and she opened the place intended for the bar and gave out the liquor. Coakley did not band him the liqaor in the dining-room.

Mr Haast—-What did you get for this Job? The Magistrate—The witness need not ♦newer that question.

Edmund Ford gave corroborative evidence.

Constable Maurice Roche said, on October 15th, with Constable Abbott, he searched defendant's premises under a warrant. Defendant was present. He said he had a gallon or two of liquor for his own use in the room put up as a bar. They found the two' casks containing whiskey (produced) with taps in them standing under the counter. One contained 4£ia whiskey and the other 3£ia. Oα a shelf, opposite was a decanter (produced) with liquor in it. The decanter had a stopper with a marble similar to those used at hotels. He found an account in the safe for an octave of whiskey, from a Dunedin firm in August. On October 18th, when served wich the summons, defendant asked if it was through Bill Coakley. Witness said " Yes,' , and defendant laughed. To Mr yon Haast—The liquor was exposed when the bar was open. Searched the lafe because he had found liquor put in closer places than that even. Took the papers from the safe which referred to 'iquor, and considered he was justified in doing so. William Coakley, shearer, residing at Cheviot, said on October Bth was at defendant's. Had a drink of whiskey in the defendant's house with the witnesses, 3enn and Ford aad Lewis. Mrs Scott supplied the liquors. No money was passed. Did not remember receiving any money from Ford. Witness had not suvse paid for them. , Mrs Scott said she would not take money from him. Mrs Scott was in where the bar was Hupposed to be; she was going in with some milk. Witness told her the men \tere "bad,"and she said she would give them the liquor. Neither Lewis nor witness said they were " bad." Witness had never offered payment. Denied telling Ford he was broke. Ford said he was " bad," and would like a liquor, bat no mention was made of money. Since the information was laid ten gallons had been sent to witness , camp. Witness did not know where it came from or why. ' . The Magistrate had occasion • here to severely caution the witness. Examination continued—He and his mates ordered the beer. It did not come from Scott's. Could not say where it came from. Mr Broham—Could it have come from the man in the moon ? <

Witness—Could not'say. (Laughter.) Had no conversation with defendant, as to receiving the beer till thia case was settled. Defendant did not see witness in reference to this case.

To the Magistrate—-Could, not say exactly bow much he paid for the beer. . This closed the prosecution. Mr Yon Haast referred to the unreliable nature of the evidence given by the hired spies, whose statements were contradictory. .., l>. J. Scott, sworn, said the menßenn and Ford c*me as stated, and said they were in want of work. Ford asked for a drink, and he refused it. On Sunday, he came to him and said he waa "bad," and witness g&ve him a drink of whiskey, but declined to take any money.. Mrs Scott was not to supply any liquor, but she might shont for her friends, fie always kept liquor for himself or his frieoda. Iα consequence of the difficulty of getting goods by road and steamer, he got up his whiskey in an octave.

To Mr Broham—Got the octave up in a floor cask; not to mislead the police, but to prevent the carriers broaching it. He went to Cheviot to open an hotel and thought by being a little liberal he might attain bis object. Ashley Lewis, W. T. Robinson, stock* man and J.P., and John Cunnard, carter, gave evidence for the defence. A second case was heard for selling two glasses of whisky on September 15th. Zaccheus Kay, carter, residing at Cheviot, said he. knew defendant's house. Was there on the night of September 15th with H. Robinson. They had some whisky. Defendant supplied it. To Mr ron Haast—They were at a Cricket Club meeting. They had some whisky in the kitchen, for which no charge was made. Did not go to trap defendant. Might have sail he would catch him.

11. Robinson, labourer, gave corroborative evidence.

Constable Roche repeated the evidence given by him in the previous case. D. J. Scott, defendant, said a large number of persons assembled at the cricket meeting and he sent two or three bottles of whiskey as a shout. No one else supplied whiskey. Hβ positively swore that he never received any money from the witness as stated.

W. T. Robinson and Ashley Lewis gave evidence for the defence.

The Magistrate said, taking the last case first, there was absolutely uo defence except the unsupported testimony of defendant, who denied the plain statements of two witnesses. If their evidence was correct defendant had committed perjury. The defendant was fined ou the first case £5 leviable by distress, in default a moutu'a imprisonment; in the second case he was " fined £25, leviable by distress, or a month's imprisonment, the liquor seized to be conVacated. Defendant asked for time and was granted a fortnight iv which to pay the tine. Opportunity.—a H. Mannikg will for a short period issue to the public his own patent exquisite Cabinet Bromaline Pnotographs at a phenomenal price, viz., 15s per doz. usual price 255. These pictures are perfect works of art, and thoroughly permanent. Remember the term of issue is brief. Studio, 150 Colombo street [Abvt.J " What ass thb Wiu> Wavks Saving T —Try Aulsebrook and 00-' a new water Uscuite, and you wOl never be without w*m»—{Ax>YT.j tw :- ;; . .;.■■.;•"■