ALLEGED UNLICENSED SALE OF LIQUOR

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 147, 18 March 1937, Page 17

ALLEGED UNLICENSED SALE OF LIQUOR

Porirua and Titahi Bay Charges

HEARING PROCEEDING The hearing of charges alleging the unlicensed sale of liquor at Porirua and Titahi Bay in December and January was continued in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M. Decision in the case concerning Maudie Hunter and Aden August Pearson was reserved. Ethel May Prosser was fined £1 and costs. The case against James Alexander Hunter, who was charged with being privy to the sale of liquor, was adjourned until April 16 pending judgment in the other cases. The hearing of the charge against Kate Trask was adjourned to 10 a.m. to-day. Harold Wilson Morgan and Donald Mackay, both of Porirua, were charged with taking part in a lottery on December 31, 1936. The prize was alleged to have been ostensibly "one bottle of perfume and a dozen of cor- ' dials,” but in fact to have been one bottle of whisky and a dozen bottles of beer. Mackay, who did not appear, said in a statement that he did not know the nature of the prize. Morgan was fined £1 and Mackay 10/-. Sub-Inspector J. A. Dempsey is conducting the prosecutions. Evidence For Defence. Continuing his defence of Maudie Hunter, Mr. A. B. Sievwright called Mary Stedman, married woman, who corroborated the evidence of a previous witness that the door of the bedroom adjoining the sitting-room in the Hunters’ residence at Titahl Bay was kept locked on Saturday nights. There was no blind in the room, as stated by Constable Griffith. Witness considered the dances at the cabaret orderly and said she had seen on signs of drunken- . ness there. , Counsel's Address. Addressing the court, Mr. Sievwright made reference to the late hour at which the defence had brought the evidence concerning the large number of empty beer bottles in the backyard. It was a matter of regret that no corroborative evidence was available for Constable Griffith’s statements, considering the preparations the police had made. Little liquor was found on the premises on the night of the raid. The evidence concerning the use of the bedroom was not corroborated, and he submitted the court could not accept Constable Griffith’s j statements.

The magistrate: There is no question of "can’t."

Mr. Sievwright: May I say “can't in justice”? The magistrate: That is better. Mr. Sievwright subpiitted that there had been nothing more than a bona tide transport of liquor by Hunter and Morgan to different persons in Porirua who had ordered the liquor for themselves. Charge Against Woman.

Ethel May Prosser, who was charged with the unlicensed sale of liquor at Porirua on December 31, was represented by Mr. A. H. Taylor. The police evidence was that she was a respected resident of Porirua. The liquor was not bought originally with the intent of resale.

Mr. Taylor said defendant took the tickets at the door of the Porirua Hall when her husband had arranged dances there. She had taken two bottles of wine to “shout” her friends on the night of December 31, but they had not arrived. She gave one bottle to an employee named O’Connor, who was selling raffle tickets at the time, and he sold it to Constable Griffith. She sold the other bottle herself. Both bottles were sold at cost, or virtually, cost price. The magistrate said that although the maximum penalty was £5O he would take into consideration the honesty of the defendant and the fact that there was no evidence of systematic sly grog-selling or any attempt on her part to avoid her responsibilities in law. Charge Against Mechanic. The next case was that of Aden August Harry Pearson, mechanic, employed at Hunter’s garage, Porirua. He was represented by Mr. R. Hardie Boys. Constable H. Griffith said he went to the garage on December 12. At 11 a.m. he purchased two bottles of beer from a boy in charge. Shortly-after 12 defendant entered. The boy said "That’s three bottles gone,” and handed defendant 4/6. There

was a ease of beer in the garage. The boy took the bottles out and placed them in a cupboard. When witness left, the cupboard was not open, the boy having locked it.

Witness again went to the garage on December 23 for the purpose of getting beer. Defendant arrived in a bus a short time afterward. Witness asked him for a bottle of beer, saying he would be paid next day, which was pay day. Two companions, a youth and a man named McCarthy, also obtained a bottle each from defendant, one of them paying for his. When witness said he would pay next day, defendant said "That will be quite all right.” At 9.10 p.m. witness again saw defendant at the garage and asked him for another bottle. Defendant went to the cupboard and secured a bottle, handing it to witness. He had the key in his pocket. Two of witness's companions also made purchases, one of them making payment.

The following day, December 24, witness went 1o pay fur the beer, anil saw defendant at Morgan's house. lie asked defendant how much he owed him, and was told 3/-. Witness asked for another bottle, and defendant said, “I’ll got it here, as that will save my going to the garage.” Defendant then took witness to a shed at the back of the house, and secured a bottle for him, saying, “That will be 1/6.”

Denial of Evidence.

Giving evidence, defendant said he had told Griffith he could arrange to get beer out from 'Wellington by the bus. It was hie practice to give the money to bus-driv-ers and collect the liquor from them. He had never got beer out of a case in the garage. Questioned by Sub-Inspector Dempsey, witness eaid he would pay the cartage on the beer himself if it were for a friend, and collect the money later. He admitted he kept Ihe key of the cupboard mentioned in Constable Griffith's evidence. It contained tools and odds and ends. He denied selling beer to Constable Griffith on the night of December 23, and that he received money from him on the night of December 24. Malcolm Haldtrow said he was at Hunter's garage on January 21. Defendant was there when a van was driven up. The driver said his vehicle had broken down, and asked permission to store a case of beer there. The case was taken off the van and put inside the garage to lighten the load, and the van went on toward Wellington after being repaired. There was no label or delivery note on the case. To Sub-Inspector Dempsey witness said there was nothing else on the vehicle. He did not hear Mr. Hunter say the wrong brand of beer had been delivered. The garage was about 150 yards from the main road.

The magistrate: Do you know ..of any reason why the case should be taken out and put in a locked cupboard? The door of the garage was locked, was it not? Witness: No, I do not know why it was done. Woman Pleads Not Guilty. Kate Trask, storekeeper, Porirua, pleaded net guilty to charges of the unlicensed sale of liquor on December 21. 25 and 27. Mr. T. P. McCarthy called Thomas Henry Eastwood to give evidence that defendant’s reputation in the district was excellent.

Constable Griffith said he was at defendant’s premises with two companions at 7.30 p.m. on December 21. He was not there in connection with the investigations into the sale of liquor, and he did not ask defendant for liquor. Defendant asked him if he would like to have shares in a brittle of wine for Christmas. Witness assented and paid 1/-. One of his companions said, “Why wait for Christmas?” The party then went to a rear room, where defendant opened a bottle of wine, and also supplied cake and biscuits.

On Christmas Day witness was again at the shop in the evening. When a customer entered, defendant's nephew went to the back room and returned with a bottle of ale. Witness assisted to drink this, and then suggested it was his turn to “shout.” A second bottle was brought out, witness tendering to the nephew 2/-. He asked a little girl to take it to defendant, and she returned with sixpence change, Witness was in the shop on December 27 with the same companions as ojj the 21st. They made purchases for a picnic, and defendant said she had a bottle of beer for witness. The companions wished to pay for it, but he said he would. Defendant said, “Yes, let Paddy pay for it,” and witness gave her 1/6. Mr. McCarthy commented to witness that his evidence had been contested throughout the hearings. The magistrate: I can say this, that the constable has given his evidence remarkably well, and so far he has not been shaken in cross-examination.