Magistrate's Court, Balclutha.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXI, Issue 1895, 17 March 1905, Page 5

Magistrate's Court, Balclutha.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15. (Before Mr Cruickshank, S.M.) KEEPING LIQUOR FOR SALE. ' CROWN v. KNIPE. Percival Sylvester Knipe and Annie ' Knipe were charged that on March 4th in the premises known as the Criterion Boarding-house, Balclutlm, they did unlawfully keep liquor for sale. Botli defendants pleaded guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr J. F. M.' Eraser, outlined the facts, which were that on the evening of the 4th inst. Constable Matthews with other policemen under search warrant entered the premises. They found two jugs beer partly full in the refreshment bar, two bottles in a slop-pail in the bathroom, and some nine bottles in different parts of .the house. The jugs which contained beer were partly, fullof hops, which inference led the police to believe the beer in the cask was nearly done. An empty case was found tinder a bed and an empty barrel in the shed outside. A lot of empty bottles were about the outside premises, and the shed had a hole in the back covered by a sack, which gave access to adjoining section, and next morning the neighbour found an empty barrel which had been rolled through this opening in his yard, and handed it over to the police. The polioe reported (hat a large number } of people went in and out of the j premises, and they strongly-suspected | that their purpose was to obtain liquor. The Magistrate asked why two persons had been summoned —both husband and wife. It was not usual. Mr Eraser said it was deemed advisable, both not being always there together. Mrs Knipe was until recently a Mrs Taylor, and the business j was still advertised in her name. ' The defendants had nothing to say. His Worship said he would take into consideration the fact that they had both pleaded guilty, and so perjury had been avoided. Mr Knipe would ; be fined £35 and costs. Mrs Knipe would be convicted and discharged. CROWN" v. McCORLEY. John McCorley, of the Railway Pri- j vale Hotel, was similarly charged, i Defendant pleaded not guilty. I Mr J. E. M. Eraser 'appeared to . prosecute, and Mr Hanlon to defend. \ Mr Eraser said that on the evening of March 4th inst the premises occupied by the defendant were searched by the police. A girl about 15 was in charge at the time. Two bottles, each containing a small quantity of whisky, and two bottles each half full of beer and part of a bottle 'of wine were discovered. The latter was found in a bedroom. Under another bed was found a portmanteaux- with 11 straw envelopes in it but no , liquor. Tn the bar was a box marked "This package contains liquor," but ' there was none in it. An empty demijohn was found in the yard smelling strongly of whisky. The seizure was not extensive, and it was suggested , that at the time of the raid the stock ■ was low. It would also be shown that persons frequented the house, | and came away the worse for liquor. ! Mr Robert Grigor gave evidence as I to "no-license" being carried, and produced the Gazette notices as required. Constable Hunt, of Clinton, gave evidence as to carrying out the search , warrant. Mr McCorley was not at home. Tn what he called the ''dark room" the witness said he found a bottle with about three nips in it. The girl in the house seemed anxious to get away, and Probationer Hall had stopped her in the passage and found on her r bottle nearly half-full of whisky. To Mr Hanlon : The "dark room" he called so because it was dark. He could not swear how it would be lighted. The night of the raid was ■dark. He did not find any beer in a bottle with flics in it in the kitchen. Some such mixture might have been kept there to moisten blacking. The seizure wn» here produced, and Mr Hanlon, pulling out the cork of the demijohn, asked witness to give attention to the state of the cork, which was gritty and evidently of some age. The witness said thpre.was no cork in the demijohn when he found it. The cork had been put in that night.

Mr Hanlon : I see, you put it in to keep the smell of the whisky and so , retain its strength. Witness : Yen, it was possible the cork was put in to keep the smell in. Mr Hanlon; And so strengthen your rather weak ease. It was not you but the "energetic" Ivi'r Hall who found the girl with the whisky. Witness : Yes ; Hall brought the whisky to me. The girl was possibly frightened when the police rushed in. Mr Hanlon : Three big policemen rushing into a house would frighten any girl, wouldn't it ? Witness : There were only two, the other one was at the back. | Constable Matthews said he did not think a large business was carried on !a* McCorley's, 'but many people fre--1 quented it. I Mr Eraser asked witness to give an ' opinion as to the class of people who. visited the house. Mr Hanlon objected. The question was not relevant. Mr Eraser said the charge was one of keeping for sale, and it was relevant to show that certain persons were in the habit of getting liquor there, and he wished to show that people had been known to go there sober and leave under the influence of drink. Mr Hanlon , submitted that the charge was keeping for sale on a certain day—viz., 4th March. The Court must draw its inferences from relevant evidence and no.t otherwise. There was no inference in the fact that people might go to a house sober and come away intoxicated, that in that house liquor was kept for sale. People might go to any private house to spend the evening and come away under the influence,, but it was monstrous to suggest that in these eases liquor was kept for purposes of sale. His Worship decided to hear the evidence. The witness, continuing, said residents in the town could not all have business in McCorley's who went there. He had heard corks being drawn in the bar, and the blinds were ■ kept closed. Mr Hanlon asked the Court to note he objected to the evidence. John Hall, a. constable, gave evidence as to the raid. To Mr Hanlon' He stopped the girl going out, and she put down the bottle with the whisky in it. He "got on to her" 10 minutes or so * after what she was going to do with it. His idea was that she was going to give it to some people who were waiting outside. He was not a constable nor a principal in the raid, and it did not strike him that when he found the girl with the whisky he should have taken her before the other constable and heard her explanation. He did not think it• necessary to interrogate the girl before a witness. He did not taste the whisky. He smelt the cork. He had been in other sly-grog cases and tasted the whisky. He was a professional witness. Mr Eraser : Oh, no ; he's a shocking bad amateur. All the same his learned friend, by making the witness say he was a professional witness, was making an insinuation. A professional witness was one who, for a consideration, would swear anything. Witness, continuing, said he did not expect to get anything out of the case. He was getting a constable's pay. He had got rewards for securing convictions. He Was waiting for another case to come off before he could say whether he would get a reward or not. He did not expect any reward in his case, it was not hope of any reward which made him give his evidence. He was a useful man in working up sly-grog cases, and lie expected to gel a permanent billet in the police if he were successful. He expected four months ago to have got into the Depot, but the authorities had kept him on doing this work. Certainly he was working to get a billet.

Mr Eraser : Yes, the witness is working' to gut a billc.t or tlio risk, of a prosecution for perjury. Mr Hani on submitted the ease should be thrown out at this stage. The prosecution savoured of persecution: When large quantities of alcoholic liquor were found, the defendant should be called on for an explanation as to why the liquor was kept. Mr Eraser said the quantity was immaterial. One man might carry on a one-bottle trade. There was the opinion expressed by Mr Justice Williams in the case Christie v. Moir, showing that inferences could be drawn. His Worship said that the opinion quoted as well as the Act which threw the oilus on the defendant to prove for what purpose he kept the liquor would preclude him from throwing the case out without, hearing the; defendant's explanation. John McOorley, examined, said he was not at home the day of the raid. He was at Port Molyneux, and had been there for some 10 days. He could not say what liquor was in the house. He kept liquor for his own use, and as long as he had a shilling would continue to <S so. There was not to his knowledge any of the liquor seized kept for sale. The bottle of wine was kept by one of his family fof medicinal purposes. It was kept in the bedroom. There was a small quantity of beer and whisky in the house when he left. He got it, at Stirling or Kaitangala, and took some " to the Port with him. The portmanteux with the empty straw envelopes was there for a certain purpose. If ho had been carrying on an illicit trade he could have easily burned them. There were half-a-dozen empty demijohns in the chaff-house. The police could have taken them as easily as the one produced. They had been' there for years. He returned to Balclutha after the raid. The reason that two decanters were in the "dark room" as the police called it, though as a matter of fact it was well lighted, was because the filter was there, and the bedroom decanters were idled there. There was no reason why two bottles should not be open at once. Mr Hanlon submitted that no prima facie case had been made out that liquor was kept on the premises for sale. It was monstrous to think a prosecution should have Vjcen instituted on such weak premises. He was sure his learned friend was no party tio it. The raid was well-timed, when the police thought if there was any-

'thing to be got they would get it. Mr McCorley was away, had Leon away for JO days, a nd only a child in the house when the police cmiw. Th* licjuor discovered was nothing to lead to the conclusion that an illicit tradt: was carried on. On the same suspicions any person might be laid under a charge of sly-grog selling however innocent, simply because a small quantity might be found in a house. Jlall was u man before whom the Department kept a> billet dangling like a bunch ot carrots in front oi an ass, and there was not the slightest doubt that he had an interest to secure a conviction. Prejudice had been thrown on the case by the statement that corks had been heard being drawn. But corks could be drawn out of otner bottles besides whisky bottles and beer bottles. Salad oil bottles and soda water bottles, and many others had corks to be drawn. Mr McCorley could not be called on to account for liquor found in his house when he was away, even though the quantity was small. His Worship said the quantity found was really small. The defendant had not improved his ease by his evidence. He was evidently fencing the .questions The empty straw envelopes were certainly very suspicious, but he could not send a man to gaol on suspicion. The case would be dismissed. ILLEGALLY US PKKMLSKS TO OBTALN LiQUOtt. William Williams, llaxmill hand, was charged that he was on the premises oi the Criterion Hoarding,house on the night of the Ith March, lor the purpose- of illegally obtaining liquor. Mr Urigor appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. .Inspector O'Brien, lor the police, outlined the case. Defendant was found on the premises on the night of the raid. He was not a boarder, and was there under such circumstances as led to the conclusion that he was there for the purpose of obtaining liquor. ] Jiividence was led by Constable Mat- ! thews and htoss to show that defend- I ant was taking part in« a dance at the hotel, and had a bottle oi whisky- in his trousers pocket?, and when the police took it he claimed it as his own. lit was unopened, and had the same label and wrapper that the rest of the whisky found in the house had. lie said he brought it from Stirling that day. lie told the police thai, lie was not a boarder, but Jived at a llaxmill, and was going back to his camp that night" the moment the police tapped his pocket he gave the whisky up. It was given bacK to him because he claimed it as his.

The defendant .said he was hr the I liabit of boarding at Ivuipu's from Saturday i»i<4ht till Sunday night and sometimes ivionday morning. He was a triend of Anipe s, and made it a rule lo spend the week end in Balelntha. Jje could not describe the man at Stirling irom whom he got the hot lie of whisky on Saturday, ith inst. lie. went for it on a bicycle. What the police said that he staled to them he was not a boarder was untrue., Somebody served him with liquor during: fekis dance and at other limes. Me could not BWear who it was. Wad a drink from a bottle passed to him by a man named Johnston, cook at the llaxmill. It was whisky, or tasted like it. He had not broached his own bottle. The lady he danced with did not have a drink. lie knew nothing about her except that she was a servant ill the house. Un the application of Mr Grigor, his Worship decided to hear the other cases before giving a decision. Edward Uiggs, llaxmiller, was similarly charged, and pleaded not guilty, lie admitted having had ''nips" out ot a bottle which was passed round. Leonard Cox, llaxmiller, was similarly charged, and made the same plea. He also had nips out of a bottle which was passed round. He drank it out of the bottle. There was no glass. They were having a singsong. .11 is Worship : J low do you do with these sing-songs. Do you put a shilling in and the winner shouts? Witness : A'o ; he supposed someone paid for the piano and the liquor. He did not. It was usual for the boarders to spend the Saturday evenings in that way. I'Yank Smith was similarly charged, and pleaded not guilty, lie said he was not a boarder. but had gone in to see a friend, and had been oii'ered a drink by one Brownlie. He could nol take whisky, a nd asked for ale, and got what appeared to be ale. The Police said the other informations had not been served. Mr (Irigor, who appeared for those charged, said with the exception of Smith the others were boarders. There was nothing against their having a sing-song, dance, or any other harmless amusement, there was no denying that the men had liquor which they themselves had purchased. The Act could not be made to apply to the case of boarders. inspector O'Brien said the four defendants knew the place had the rereputation of being a sly-grog shop, and no other conclusion could be come to but that they went there for the purpose of [retting drink. His Worship said there was eertir.in ly the inference that they were con eemed in using liquor which was bought under suspicious circumstances. Then? was much in Mr Grigor's contention in regard to their being boarders except Smith. It seemed to him these men chose that house as a resort because they, could pet drink there instead of a quieter house. TinAct stipulated that they must, be there for the sole purpose of illegally dealing in liquor. Smith's case was different. Someone asked him to have a beer, and he Imcf one. He was the decentest witness of the lot, and yet by the company he kept had brought himself within the section. ft appeared to him that Smith's connection with the case was more accident than design. The cases against Williams, Cox, and Higgs would be dismissed ; Smith would be convicted and discharged. George Macgregor ant] 1). Murray were similarly chavgeel with illegally" being on MtCorley's premises the night of the raid. Both pleadml not guilty. The explanations given by

the former that ho was regularly in the habit of dropping in to see the family, and by the latter that on the night in question, finding Jlw train south was running lafe, he went into the hotel and sat down to rest. The police soon after eame in and took his name.—Gases dismissed. KDWATIOX ACT. Henry Robinson pleaded guilty to failing to send his three children to school at Warepiv regularly.—lnspector Ryan prosecuted, and after hearing the defendant's statement. a fine of ">/- in each case, with costs, was recorded. CIVIL CASKS. The Civil cases were either confessed or adjourned.