CLINTON S.M. COURT.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXIX, Issue 57, 28 February 1913, Page 5

CLINTON S.M. COURT.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26.

(Before Mr ,1. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

A KEG OF BEER. Sinclair Henderson, Clinton, charged with, on December 12, 1912, stealing one five-gallon keg of beer, valued at £l,,the property of the New Zealand Government Railways. He was further charged with that, on December 13,1912, at Clinton, he didy with intent to defraud, obtain one live-gallon keg of beer, valued at £l, the property of the New Zealand Government Railway Department, by means of a certain false pretence—to wit, an order purporting to be signed by one Nathaniel Butler. . . • Mr J. McGregor (Dunedin), who appeared for accused, pleaded not guilty, and asked that the two cases be heard together. Constable Kerse said .the information was laid under section 223 of the Justices of the Peace Act. The circumstances were that defendant, along with others, were shearing at Kuriwao station. On December 12 Butler sent a 12/6 postal note 'for five gallons of beer, and on'its arrival Henderson got the liquor and, with others, started to drink it. Next day it came on raining, and they knocked off work'. They asked Butler to join them in drinking the beer, but Butler declined,, saying he would get his own next night. On going for his beer he found that it had been already lifted. l

Edward Ferguson Neilson, railway porter, Clinton, sworn, 4aid he remembered defendant calliug lor Butler's beer on December 12. He showed an order, signed the book and paid the freight. He did not hand witness the order, only showed it, saying it was one from Butler. It was about 10 p.m. Through witness being busy in closing up he neglected to take the order.

By Mr McGregor: Defendant just held the order in his hand at his side. Witness was a bit cross at defendant coming so late. Did not know whether there was anybody with Henderson. His Worship: What caused you to deliver the liquor? Witness: We are in the habit of giving liquor when an order is produced, li he had not shown the order the liquor would not have been given over, Nathaniel Butler, labourer, Taumata, gave evidence as to enclosing a postal note for 12/6 on December 11 in an order to Briggs, Caversham, for beer. On Saturday Graham told witness that they had his beer in the hut, and they invited him to go for a drink but he declined, and at night he went to the station master for his own keg of beer. He was then told that Henderson had got the beer. It was Graham, one of the shearers, who had advised witness to report the matter. He hail never yet received the keg, and he never signed an order for anyone to take delivery of it. By Mr McGregor: There was an understanding between witness, Henderson and Graham to go equal shares in the keg, and they shared the expense. There was a row on Saturday night, '' but that was after they drank the beer." (Laughter.) There was no row during the week about wet sheep. By the Police: After the beer had been ordered Henderson-' and Graham offered to pay equal shares, but witness would not go "shares" when their names were not in the order the same as his.

His Worship: Was the position altered through them not going in before the order was sent away?

Butler: Yes. If 1 got the liquor out in my name and took money from them I might have beeu had up for sly grogselling. (Laughter.)

*>. J. Veal, station master, Clinton, remembered hearing the porter arguing on December 1M with Henderson about a keg of beer. He did not see any order. When Butler called for his beer on the following Saturday he found that Henderson had signed for and taken the beer.

Constable Kerse gave evidence that on December 14 Butler came to him and complained about the liquor being taken away. No trace of the orfler could be found in the statioii office. He interviewed Henderson a few days later, who said that he wrote the order out and Butler had signed it, and declined to say anything further. It was the same with Graham. On- January 11 Butler asked witness to have the case withdrawn.

Mr McGregor said the.ease was almost too. flimsy to call for a defence. The facts were that the three men had arranged to go "whacks" in getting the beer. He called I Thomas Graham, labourer, who gave evidence that Butler approached Henderson and witness at "smoke-oh" to go shares in'a keg of beer for the following Saturday uight. At Butler's request witness wrote out the order to Briggs', Caversham, and also signed it "Nathaniel Butler." Butler handed witness postal notes for 12/6. That waa on Wednesday, December 12, and on the following Friday witness heard Butler, asking Henderson to lift a keg of beer which would come that night for him. Henderson asked for an order, and Butler said he was not a good writer, and asked Henderson to write the order out for him and scribble Butler's name down. This was done. That night Henderson and witness got the beer at about 9.80. Henderson and Butler- had a few words in .the shearing ane< i on Saturday afternoon. There were some "high" words during the row. Sinclair Henderson, the defendant, gave corroborative evidence. His Worship said that the evidence on both sides was unsatisfactory—on Butler's by reason of his admitting that all three were participants in the purchase of the liquor, and on defendant's and Graham's part by the contradictory behaviour in just telling the police that the orders were in Butler's handwriting and then on oath saying* that they were written by them on Butler's request. Under the circumstances ae 'Wist dismiss the ewe.

, orrcifc case. " ,M. Piinnett v. A. Soutar —judgment by default for amount claimed (£4 lis 4d)' and court costs (8s). DEFENCE CASE. The adjourned case' against' Ernest Samuel Broad; Waiwera, for failing to render personal service in the senior cadet company, .Clinton, was brought up. The police reported that Broad ■ had. attended the parad6s regularly of late, and the Defence officials were satisfied with the way he had carried out his duties, and asked that the case be withdrawn.