CHARGES OF SLY GROG-SELLING.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXIV, Issue 1223, 10 December 1897, Page 5

CHARGES OF SLY GROG-SEL-LING.

♦ Before Mr Hawkins at the Balclutha Court on Wednesday— John Hexey was charged with selling whisky on 18th November without a license. Inspector Pardy appeared for the police and Mr D. D. Macdonald for the defendant who pleaded not guilty. All the witnesses were ordered out of court. William "Willocks, remembered being at Heuey's on November 18. M. Liston and witnesses' brother, James, and defendant were with him. When they went into Hcnev's witness had a drink of whisky. The others had something. Heney supplied it. Could not say what his brother had nor what Liston had. Paid Liston. Paid Liston because he asked for it. Liston said, " Where is the spondulix ?" Witness gave him 2s. Witness did not owe Liston any money. Heney had a drink too. It was between the stable and hcuse when going in, that he gave Liston the 2s. This was after witness asked them to come in. Did not see Liston pay Mrs Heney. To Mr Macdonald : Went to see Liston about some accounts. There was nothing said inside about the 2s so far as witness heard. To Mr Hawkins : Went into the old commercial room on the opposite side of the bar. The liquor Heney gave witness be took from a place on the side of the wall. It was in a bottle. To Mr Pardy : Witness went to get money from Liston. Liston owed him money. James Willocks went to Honey's with his brother and M. Liston. His brother wanted to see Liston about some accounts. Saw Liston in the stable. While they were talking witness was 10 or 15 yards away. Liston and his brother went inside the house, the latter nodding to him to come, which he did. Apparently they had finished their business. After they got inside and were discussing their business, Heney subsequently appeared with a bottle of whisky of which they all had some. Did not see anybody pay for it. To Mr Macdonald : "Did think it was to bo paid for at the time. M. Liston remembered the Willocks being at his stables. W. Willocks came to have an account settled that witness owed him. Witness asked for the account. Willocks did not have it. Witness promised to pay it into the bank. There being too many in the stable they went into the house to complete the business. Going into the House nothing was said about liquor or money. Was oertain of it. When they got into the room witness asked Willocks what bank he dealt with. Heney soon after came into the room. He said " The people of Balclutha have been very hard on me, but I have still a drop left in the bottle." He produced a bottle of whisky of which they had a drink. He never saw any money pass ; it was not paid for. To His Worship : Heney went out of the room for the bottle. Mr Macdonald submitted that the case must be dismissed. Assuming that William Willocks' evidence was correct there was not a tittle of evidence to show that the money passed into Heney's hands. And on the other hand Liston denied that he received any money. Then the third witness, James Willocks, said he understood the thing was not, and was not to be, paid for. He called John Heney, the defendant, who said he was not paid for the whisky then nor since. Witness simply asked them to have a drink in a friendly way. To Mr Pardy : Liston had hjs meals in the house. Did not know how aooounts stood between them. His wife attended to that, Never saw W. Willooks in his house more than the once. To his knowledge W. Willocks was not in on another occasion the same day and had whisky. Mr Pardy asked his Worship to recall W. Willocks and ask him whether he had whisky on another occasion that day. Mr Macdonald objected. Mr Hawkins did not think it was necessary. It would simply be laying the foundation of another case, which had not been referred to. In giving his decision Mr Hawkins said he was satisfied there was a transaction in the nature of a sale to William Willocks. Fined L4O and costs 7s. In giving judgment against John Heney in the ease heard last court day for exposing liquor for sale, his Worship said he was of opinion that those goods were exposed for sale. There were several bottles of cordials put out for sale, and among them were two bottles of whiskey. It did not matter whether the place was exposed to the street or not. The evidence of Glossop and Goldring showed they knew where to go. He would not inflict a large fine. A fine of L 5 would allow an ' appeal. Pined L 5 and costs 7s Mr Macdonald asked his Worship to fix accounts for appeal. It would have to be by case stated. Mr Hawkins would willingly grant appeaL and fixed security at LlO. Mr Pardy asked for a confiscation of the liquor seized. Mr Macdonald said the liquor was seized }n respect 9* a charge that broke down,

Mr Pardy said the seizure was made on the same day as the charge for exposing for sale was laid. Mr Hawkins thought he must order confiscation. Mr Macdonald said his point was that the seizure was made in respect of the charges that were dismissed. Mr Pardy demed this. Mr Hawkins said the police had power under Section 18G to seize irrespective of any charge. The conviction for exposure was in respect of some of the liquor that was actually seized. He did not think there was any ' doubt about it. Under Section 187 the police asked for a confiscation. — After some argument Mr Hawkins made an order for forfeiture of the liquor seized.

Margaret Heney was charged with sly-grog-selling Nov 11th. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr D. D. Maedonald. Mr Pardy asked to be allowed to amend the information to the 15th of November. — Amended accordingly. William Wilkinson, knew Mrs Heney and was in the Heney's house. He believed it was on a Monday, did not remember the date. George. Thomson was with him. Wanted to see Mr Thomson on business. They were passing Heney's and went in. It was between the two court days. His Worship said the courts were on Friday the 12th and Thursday 25th. Examination continued : Saw Mrs Honey. Told her he wanted a drop of whisky to drink. Thomson was there but said nothing. Thomson had a drink also, but witness could not say what he had. It was in the old bar. Witness paid for both drinks. To Mr Macdonald : Did not take any notice of the date. Could not tell whether Thomson was ringing the telephone or not. So far as he remembered Thomson was there all the time. George Thomson remembered meeting Wilkinson in front of Heney's as he was coming from the station. Wilkinson wanted to see him abotifc a horse. They went inside ; saw Mrs Heney. Witness suggested going in ; he wanted the telephone, and asked for the use of the telephone. Had something to drink. Witness had whisky. Did not know it was to paid for or he would not have taken it. Went into the telephone and left Mrs Heney and Wilkinson together. The date was not the 11th ; it was, he thought, before that ; at anyrate there was a ease pending against Heney. If Wilkinson said it was between the 12th and 25th witness would not contradict him though he thought it was previous to the 12th. To MrMacdorjald: Mrs Heno/ said she was treating them ; had it been otherwise witness would not have taken the whisky. Thought that Wilkinson being Mrs Heney's brother-in-law she was treating. Mrs Heney said she could shout for the police. She asked him to have a driuk. leather thought it was the Monday before the 11th, but he could not swear to it. Mr Macdonald said the case must be dismissed. On Thomson's evidence Mrs Heney said she was shouting and consequently it was a legal transaction. His Worship did not think there was any doubt about this case. Wilkinson was, he believed, speaking the truth, and there was nothing in Thomson's evidence inconsistent with it. Whether Mrs Heney said she was shouting or not to induce Thomson to drink was a matter that did not effect Wilkinson's evidence. Mr Hawkins at this stage decided the case against John Heney for exposing liquor for sale, heard last court day. Having done so he asked Mr Pardy whether he pressed for a heavy fine in this case. Mr Pardy replied in the negative. — A fine of L-5 and costs 7s was then inflicted.

Jamks Duxcan was charged with selling whisky on November 2nd without being licensed to do so. Mr D. D. Maeclonald for defendant who pleaded not guilty. Mr Pardy said this ease arose out of a previous case. Mr Macdonald said he would accept the evidence in the case referred to. Mr Hawkins : I think you had better go on with the case afresh. Joseph Keaney, police constable at Mataura, gave evidence as to being in Dalolutha on November 2nd last, and giving Duncan 2s to get whisky, whereupon Duncan took a bottle from the shelf and went out, returning in about half an hour with the bottle full of whisky. He said he got it from his own jar. It was whiskey, they drank it. He did not say ho had it given to him. He kept the money. To Mr Macdonald : Did not believe he got the whisky from his own jar. Believed he got it at Heney'g. Witness meant Duncan to act as agent. Heard Duncan say in the court he got the liquor from M, Inston far nothing. Robert Angus gave evidence as to Dunoan getting 2s from Keaney and going for whisky and returning with it. To Mr Macdonald : The constable gave Duncan 2s to get whisky. The money was not returned in hU presence. Catherine Angus, wife of last witness, said Duncan came to her door to borrow some money, as there was a gentleman in his place from ft, distance, he wished to shout for. Some days after she had a conversation with Duncan. Mr Pardy : Did he say where he got the wh'sky. Mr Macdonald : You have no right to ask that question, you are fishing for evidence. Mr Pardy repudiated the insinuation. It was Mr Macdonald who did the fishing for evidence, not him. Mr Macflonald admitted that he could fish better than the inspector did. Mr Pardy was well aware of that, and,-^he was understood to say — in a manner that was not creditable either. ) Mr Hawkins said the question could not be put unless it had direct bearing on the case. My Pardy : Well I'll ask her if he said how he came by it ? Mr Hawkins : You can ask that. Mv Macdonald objected. Mr Pardy repeated the question. Witness : He told me he bought it. Mr Pardy : Did he say who he brought it from? ; Mr Macdonald again objected. Mr Hawkins thought they could not carry it any further. Mr Macdonald said all the evidence showed that Duncan acted as agent for the constable. It could not possibly be said anything in the j nature of a sale took place as between Duncan and the constable. Mr Hawkins said the case was totally inconsistent with the previous case in which Heney was charged with selling this whisky. It was clear Duncan was the constable's agent. Keaney's evidence about Duncan's own jar was quite different to what he said last time. Mr Pardy : Pardon me ; he was not allowed to give that conversation last time. Mr Hawkins said the two cases were totally inconsistent. Case dismissed.

Mr Maedonald said with regard to those cases a letter appeared in Saturday's Times by a party in Balclutha, making certain comments which were very much out of place while the cases were subjudke.

Mr . Hawkins was very sorry, but he could assure Mr Macdonald it had had no weight with him. . . Mr Macdonald did not say that it had, but it was entirely wrong that the letter should have appeared- while these eases ■ were sub judice. It would have been .better for the party referred to- to have withheld any comments he wished to make till the cases were decided. : Mr Hawkins said he had not seen the letter, he did riot read these letters, Proceeding Mr Hawkins said:' " Since the issue of licenses for the sale of liquor was stopped in the Electoial District of Clutha, under the provisions of the " Alcoholic Liquor Sale Control Act,lß93,' there have been 78 informations laid for sale without a license, and two for .exposing for sale without a license, making in all 80 informations. Of these 40 have been, withdrawn, 15 have been dismissed, and 25 have been followed by convictions. The total amount of fines levied is LO5l. It must be conceded therefore that the law has been enforced. But it must be borne in mind that ( the prohibition of sale of liquor exists in no other constituency in the Colony, and that the people of this wide and thinly populated district are living under the pressure of a completely exceptional law. The question of adoption or non-adoption, acceptance or non-acceptance, of the prohibit- j ive provisions of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Acts has twice been referred to the whole constituencies of the colony and has twice been deliberately rejected by every constituency but this —I suppose an almost unheard of unanimity of rejeciiou of a law in any country where referendum is in force. Under these circumstances I think it my duty and I intend to report to the Government through the chief of my department on the general operation of the law and its effect on the administration of justice." Mr Macdonald said the facts showed that there were a considerable number of people who refused to be bound by a prohibitory law. _ Mr" Hawkins : No doubt, but he had to consider the effect on the administration of justice. Mr Pardy said the fines showed that the police had done their duty in the matter. Mr Hawkins thought they had, and so long as the law was in force in the distiict he would endeavour to see that it was obeyed.