UNCERTAINTY AS TO IDENTIFICATION

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 190, 8 May 1937, Page 13

UNCERTAINTY AS TO IDENTIFICATION

Case of Twin Brothers DISMISSAL OF AUCKLAND CHARGE By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, May 7. Uncertainty of identification in the case of twin brothers was the ground for the dismissal of a charge of being the occupier of premises in Customs Street known as Stamford House and used for purposes of illegally selling liquor which was preferred agamtt Boscelly Facoory, bootmaker, m the Magistrate’s Court. Senior-Sergeant Flanagan conducted the prosecution and Mr. Wright appeared for accused, who entered a plea of not guilty. The secretary of the company owning Stamford House, Frank Criuimins, stated that about the middle of Januuary he let the first floor of the premises to a man named McGill, who left on January 19. Arrangements were made for Facoory to continue McGill s tenancy, but the former vacated the premises two or three days before witness was informed. The rent was deposited in the Bank of New Zealand each Monday, and Facoory’s last deposit was paid on March 2. Cross-examined, witness said he could not identify defendant as the Facoory who rented the rooms. He was not prepared to say he was not the man. however.

A visit to the premises on February 25 was described by Constable Griffith, who stated that he saw defendant there. Facoory was walking round the place as though he was connected with it. There were about eight people there at the time, and witness saw 16 bottles sold while he was on the premises. Some were sold by a man named Parker. Witness bought six small bottles of beer at 1/- each. In reply to Mr. C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., witness said the room was set up for the purposes of drinking. Another visit to the premises at 12.45 a.m. on March 2 was referred to by Constable Griffith. In reply to Mr. Wright, witness said that, while liquor was sold, he did not see Facoory sell any. He was positive accused was the Facoory who opened the door. It was not his brother, ami he was prepared to swear that accused was the man.

Case for Defence.

After further evidence for the prosecution, counsel said that the defence was a denial that defendant was the occupier of the premises or that he had anything to do with the tenancy of the place or the business conducted there. Defendant was a teetotaller and went to tlie premises to see a friend. Excepting on one occasion in January, that was the only occasion on which he had been there.

Defendant said he and his brother, Herbert John Facoory, were partners in a boot-manufacturing business. His brother signed himself B. J. Facoory sometimes, as he was sometimes known as Bert. The deposit slips paid into the bank as rent for the premises were signed B. J. Facoory, and they could possibly be his brother’s. Witness was in no way interested in the sly-grog business and had not financed Parker. At the request of the magistrate, defendant submitted a specimen signature which the magistrate, after inspecting, said was something like that of B. J. Facoory. “It might be a family similiarity. These things sometimes happen,” added Mr. Or.r-Walker. Defendant said he resembled his twin brother, and considered it would be difficult for a stranger to notice any difference.

Full responsibility for the conduct of the business was accepted by Charles Henry Parker. The magistrate dismissed the case without prejudice, as there was some question as to the identification of defendant. Tlie police could take up the case again if they wished. The matter of inflicting a penalty on Parker was then considered by the magistrate. “1 have to take into consideration the fact that young women were allowed into the premises, ’ said the magistrate. “It is a shocking tiling. Hotelkeepers would be prosecuted if they served these people after hours or women under 21. Here quantities of liquor were sold after midnight with no control or restraint. This m.an has set out to make money in this way. This tiling is fairly prevalent in this city, and something will have to be done to discontinue it. I want to know what grounds there are why the maximum penalty should not be inflicted. I am hoping this may prevent others from doing the same thing.” A fine of £5O was imposed on Parker, with 10/- costs. Two weeks were allowed for payment of the fine, and Parker would have to report to the police daily until the tine was paid.