LIQUOR IN ASHBURTON.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11875, 23 April 1904, Page 5

LIQUOR IN ASHBURTON.

SEVEN* DEFENDANTS FINED. FINES AGGREGATING £220. Mr C. A. Wrav, S.M., yesterday delivered judgment at Ashburton in the cases of alleged illegal sale of liquor. Mr Cresswell appeared on behalf of the Crown, and 'Mr Orisp for the defendants. The Court was crowded with persons interested in the outcome of the prosecutions. His "Worship took the cases almost in the order in w iiich they were heard. In the case of J. W. Malcolmson, lie was satisfied that a sale of liquor had actually taken place. :>lalcolmson would, therefore, be convicted and fined £25. In the case of Alexander McKenzie, in whicTi two informations were laid, he was satisfied that sales actually took place, both on the 19th and 23rd March. McKenzie ■would, therefore, be convicted and fined £30—£15 for each offence. In the case of Alfred Bray, he was also satisfied that liquor had been supplied and that the transactions in each cane were of the nature of a sale. He would, therefore, convict Bray on each charge, and fine him £45, or £15 on each charge. In the case of Thomas Alexander, in which two informations were laid, he was satisfied that liquor had been supplied on each occasion, and that on each occasion a sale h,ad actually taken place as alleged. He would, therefore, convict on each charge, inflicting a fine of £30, or £15 on each charge. In the case of Robert Shields, he had some doubt as to what actually took place on the Bth March, and would, therefore, convict on the charges relating to the 11th and 13th March only, and dismiss the charge as to the Btk Defendant would l>e fined £30, or £15 on each charge on which he was convicted. In the caee of David T, Todd, he would convict the defendant of selling liquor on each information, inflicting a fine of £30, or £15 on each charge. In this case the accused stated thnt he procured the liquor from another person, but he refused to divulge the name of the person from whom he procured it. In the case of Julia Hylands, the evidence for.the prosecution was very-con-flicting and contradictory, and he was not satisfied that a sale had taken place, the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution being uncorroborated. This caee would, therefore, be dismissed. In the case of Joseph Dineen, against whom two informations were laid, the circumstances appeared to be very suspicious, but the uncorroborated evidence of the informers was, considering all the circumstances, not sufficient to warrant a conviction. Ho would recommend Ihe police, however, to bring under the notice of the Railway Department the extraordinary amount of linunr nllewrl to have been consumed at weildiiitf fe'tivlii ■:; un defendant's premises". . 'J 'lk* r;i.«e wou'd Lt dismi.-sed. In the ea-e of Mieh:i;-1 Liigun. the ouly evidence for the pros.'cuiion was thi't of the infornVrs, anil this was entirely uncorroborated. The cam would, therefore, be dismissed. In the c;u*e of John Robb. against whom two informations were laid, the question was whether the beer supplied was a gift or was sold. He was Fatisfied, on the evidence, that it was not a gift, and thai sales actually occurred. He would, therefore, convict on both informations, and inflict a fine of £30, £15 on each information. In the cn&e of Richard Xoalon there was some doubt, although the circumstances were very suspicious. The informers swore that thej- procured drinks on three occasions, but there was no corroborative evidence of any one eale. As he had previously remarked, he was not prepared to admit the evidence of the informers whore it stood alone and uncorroborated. In this ov-e the necured ewore that he did not supply. O'Brien should have been called to yive evidence as to the circumstances under which liquor was supplied. The evidence of the accused was not eat. isfactory, and he was, satisfied that he gave an untruthful account of the matter of the case of whiskey. This, however, did not appear to bo sufficient Vo corroborate the whole of Withey's evidence. He had funned a very unfavourable opinion as to the reliability of the evidence of the informers, and where their evidence was contradictory he held that the informations* were not sufficiently proved, and he would not convict. The case was Therefore dismissed. In the case of Harry P. Milsom, against whom two informations were laid, he would refuse to convict on the came grounds, for the want of corroborative evidence. The case would, therefore, be dismissed. Decision in the case of Elisabeth Hitchingfl would be reserved. Mr during the delivery of the decisions, asked- for a ruling to be made in regard to cost*. His Worship refused to make any order, the inference being that the Crown will have to pay all expenses. After the decisions wero delivered, Mr CrossweH asked that an order should be made a* to tihe disposal of liquor seized during the recent raid. His Worship eai-.l that where a conviction was made the liquor would be confiscated, and where cases were' dismissed it would be returned to the owners.