ILLICIT STILL AT AUCKLAND

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24092, 30 October 1943, Page 6

ILLICIT STILL AT AUCKLAND

■ ■ i —— MAN SENTENCED TO NINE MONTHS’ GAOL FIRST CASE OF KIND FOR ' LONG TIME ' (P.A.) ’ AUCKLAND, October 29. Charged with having in his custody a 'still or other apparatus .suitable, for distilling liquor, a commission agent, Frederick aged 45, pleaded not 'guilty before Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M. A sentence of nine months’ imprisonment with hard-labour was imposed. Mr G, Meredith said Sergeant Adams, • constable, and a Customs officer went to the Paremoremo district near Albany on October 12. They found, a bach owned by accused,. who was not present. Obtaining entry,, they discovered in the kitchen a 40 gallon cask full of fermenting whisky wash made of,'maize mash and yeast. In a detached washhouse was found a large copper still in two parts. An analysis of the fermenting wash showed .a content' qf 19.61 proof spirit capable of producing spirit distillate of over 100 per- cent, proof. The officer and sergeant returned to town, and the constable hid-himself in -some scrub. .Accused arrived at about 5 p.m. and, after looking round. the building for a while, entered. . Half an hour later he went to the washhouse and came out carrying part of the still on . his shoulder and made off toward some manuka scrub, as though to conceal it. The constable then accosted him and took him back to the bach until Sergeant Adams returned. Denial By Accused Mr Meredith said accused denied distilling whisky and said the still and other apparatus belonged to another man, whose name he would not disclose. He alleged he had told the man to remove the still or he would do so himself. The maize mash he had intended to give to his neighbours’ fowls. Mr J. F. Dickson said he would not challenge the police evidence. However, the accused would not reVeal the name of the man who owned the apparatus. This man was ‘‘a desperate character” and had assaulted Spencer since his first appearance in Court. (Spencer had been away from the bach ■between September 29 and October 12* except for one day when he saw the apparatus and ordered the man to remove- it immediately. Counsel called witnesses who stated that the apparatus used to make the still was bought by the second man that the still was conveyed to the [bach in Spencer’s absence. The. nature »of the still was not known at the time. “It is quite clear this still was on Spencer’s premises and that he knew of it,” said the Magistrate. “That is sufficient to bring him within the provisions of the Distillation Act. “There may be a certain amount of truth in the story of the defence. As far as the Court is concerned it Is a simple case of the man entering into partnership or some other connexion with another man and carrying on an Unlicensed still for making liquor and selling it illicitly. “This case calls for a heavy penalty,” he continued. “It has been a long time since a case of this nature came before the Courts, and it is the first to be heard by me since I have been in Auckland. For some months it has been clear that whisky, manufactured UUwtljr has . been making - its rounds market'*