ALLEGED SLY- GROG SELLING.

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 11, 13 January 1900, Page 2

ALLEGED SLY- GROG SELLING.

THE RONA BAY CASE. A FINE OF £20 IMPOSED. The hearing of the charge ii.gainui; Uartolu Husko and his wife, Italia Russo, of sly-grog selling at Rona Bay on 24th December was continued before Mr. Haselden, S.M. , yesterday afternoon. The "wilnefis Probationary-Constable Booth, further cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, stated that Rondinini was in tho room when they asked for some whisky in a bottle at the last. Probationary-Constablo F. H. Durbridge gave evidence similar to that of tho last witness. The extent of his cour veraation with tho mail in tho front (Rondinini) was to ask if they could get a nip of whisky, and ho told thorn to go round the back and they would get it. They went round, and witness asked Mrs. Russo for some whisky, but she replied that they did not keep ib on the place. He then said that the boss had told them to go round to have a drink, and (.hereupon she asked them to come insido. They did so, and had tho liquor as narrated by Booth. At the end, when Russo came in and said he was the boss and had not told them to come in. witness said, "No, but the old man outside- who I took to be the boss told me." As' they left Mrs. Russo said,' "We keep the whisky for our own private use.' To Mr. Skprrett — Had no pre-arrangeel plan with Booth. He really thought on seeing Rondinini outside that he was the proprietor. Did not say anything to Mrs. Russo about drinking the boss's health. Constable Cruickshank gave evidence of having executed the search warrant. The liquor enumerated by Booth was found under a bed. Russo said that had he known bhey were coming he would have saved them the trouble, , and would have got the liquor out of tho way. Also that part of the stout was bad, and he was going to send it back, and that the wine had been sent as a present from Home. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Skerrett asked, on authorities he quoted, that the case, against Russo should be dismissed. Hie Worship said he would reserve the poinb for the present, but would decide it as against Russo on the evidence already adduced. He certainly did not think, it would be fair to substantially punish both defendants. Mrs. Russo then gavo evidence. She was washing up the dishes when Dur-, bridge came round and said — "The boss is busy in the shop, and he told us to come round and have a drink." Witness replied that she had none, whereupon ho said, "He told me that you had some whisky in a bottle." She then said, " Ob, yes ; I have been making Christmas puddings, and there is a-vbottle on the cheat of drawers. If he told you to come round and drink his health you are quite welcome to." Durbridge called in his companion, and witness then got the wihisky and two glasses, and told them where the tap was. Rondinini came in soon after ivhat and sat flown. Durbridge camo out afyer a little while and said they vrooild like another, and she said the bottle was inside, and if the boss told them bo cvome round they were welcome to the lot. She was quite positive that they gavo her no money, and did not ask what the damage was. Money was mentioned tlhe first time when tney asked for a shilling's worth in a bottle. She then said, ¥ Well, we don't sell it ; but I will see ii the boss will give you it." Witness thon went to the shop to see her husband a\nd said to him, "Those two gentlemen you sent in want some whisky in a bottL'p," and that was what made him come omb and say to the two men, " How dare you come into my place under false pretences?" When Durbr'idge said, pointing to Rondinini, "The boss sent me," witness retorted, "You know he's not the boss, because you told me the boss was busy in the Bhop." After Russo had kicked Booth, the latter said, "I'll mal^e you pay for it." Tho wine which was found was a present from Home, and they had it nearly Ii years. To Inspector Pender — Mr. Russo was busy working in the shop, as Sunday was a busy day. Rondinini was building a house out there, and was living at their place tihat day. Rondinini deposed that what Durbridge asked him was as to the Whereabouts of the closet, not if he could not get any whisky. Substantially the remajnder of this witness's evidence was corroborative of Mrs. Riusso's, though he did not hear all the conversations. He saw no money pass from the two men to Mrs. Russo. To Inspector Pender— -He would swear a thousand times that 'ho saw no money pass. His reason for following the two men into the house was because he was an intimate friend of Mr. Russo's, and could go in and out as he liked. He did not think of telling them to go to tho house, and when he . sa^ them talking to Mrs. liusso he thought they must be some friends, as he had seen them enter the shop in the morning; Bartolo Russo, storekeeper . at Rona Bay, stated that he got <55 bottles of wine from Italy over a year lago, and had fiven some of it to friends.! He did not p-ep any Uquor fpr sale. r^he two men did not seem to clear out when, he ordered them, and that was why he. kicked Boot hi who made the remark that he would make shim pay for it. , To Inspector . Pender— Dea^t? at Kernot's, from whom he got a c^ise of beer and a case of Btout about a week before Christmas as ,he had a numbttr of relatives criming to live there. or four weeks' before that he got a similar quantity^ There were four dozem buttles in each case, and hG dtd npt sell any. Mr. Sketrett said the case'w&s purely one of fact. If tho Court was going to ,place implicit credence oil the evidence of the, two, probationary constable's l/faon it would convict, if not it should dismiss t)he case. The 'defendants were decent respectable . people. , The , seizure was quite unexpected, and the* small quantity of liquor found was quite incompatible with the supposition tb,^t slygrog selling was carried on there, Ho submitted that the evidence for the prosecution should ho very carefully viewed by tho Magistrate, for on the statement of the two probationers themselves, they invited and even pressed for a breach of the statute. There was a strong temptation to exaggerate, and even to invent. His Worship asked Inspector Pender if there was uny toward given for obtainInspector Pender replied in the negative, explaining that the reward had been abolished since the passing of the Pol'ce Provident Fund Bill. In conclusion, Mr. Skerrett pointed out that the witnesses were now members of the police force, and their evidence was contradicted by .two persons. Ib would be casting no aspersion on the men if the case were dismissed. Inspector Pender remarked on the straightforward and connected manner in which the men had givon their evidence. They had absolutely no motive for swearing falsely. As the Magistrate said, it was really a question between tho two' men and Mrs. Russo as to payment. His Worship, in giving his decision, said — "In the old days the police had to rely for proof in these cases upon, the evidence of common informers, persons necessarily of shady character, who went into districts where they were strangers, getting up cases against slyerojz Boilers for the hope of reward.

Convictions were secured, but Magistrate bogaii to feel the danger of convictinj on Mtch tainted evidence. It was founc however, that tho regular police wen helpless; the experienced eye of the sly grog seller detected the detectives ii spile of plain clothes or disguise, am would not commit himself. Lately pro bationery constables have been employed and in this case I am asked to convicl on the evidence of two young men, pro baliouery constubles, presumably oi blameless character, who have sworn positively that they paid Mrs. Russo 2* for the liquor they obtained from her. The defqiice is simply an absolute denial by Mrs. Russo that any money was paid. If tho defence is true, the twe probationers have ' been gjuilty of a crime of the basest moral turpitude and of extraordinary stupidity. They must if guilty have lost their own self respect, tho retpect for eaoh other, and the res'poet, of every man who knows the trum. They have stood the test of ablo crossexamination^ and have satisfied me thai they are nob perjurers tmd fools, but honest men doing a disagreeable piece oi work in an honest way, It is differ ent with the defendant. She has every inducement from oue point of view to deny the receipt of the money, but bad as falsehood may be on her part, it is not to be compared in turpitude with the baseness on the part of the constables if they were guilty of false swearing. No man can be absolutely certain that there is no possibility of error in the conclusions he draws from the ev'dence of others ; the unknown quantity of error must always be possible in human affairs; but judging 'the matter na a suiy would- be directed to do, I must come to the conclusion that the defeudant, Mrs Russo, did sell the liquor as charged in the information, and must be convicted. In reply to the Magistrate, it was stated that the nearest licensed house to Russo's was eight miles distant ; that a license which would cost £20 or £2o could not be obtained as it would be contrary to- the local option poll 5 that Russo so far ac was known was of good character. Mr. Skerrett said that Russo preferred to havo the conviction recorded against him if possible, but the Magistrate said that could not be done upon the tvidence. Tho charge against Russo -•voulrt bo dismissed. Mr. Skerrctt having addressed the Bench on the question of penalty, the Inspector said he felt bound to say Ibat from information he had, sly-grog selling was going on very strongly about here. A fine of £20 was inflicted on fyl rs. Russo,, the Magistrate remarking that he expected Russo would pay it. Seven days would be allowed for payment, and in default of sufficient distress the alternative would be three months' imprisonment. ANOTHER CASE FROM THE TAITA The last charge was against Alfred Henry Truebridge and Elizabeth Mary Gibbs, who were alleged to have sold liquor without a license at the Taita on 24th December. In this case also Mr. Skerrett appeared for defendants. Qounsel explained that Mr. Truobridge kept a summer -lodging houso E and refreshment rooms at "The Oaks." His price for a lunch vras 2s, but he had been in the habit of permitting anyone who required it to have a glass of beer with his lunch, making no special charge for the beer. Truebridge had nob the least idea that he was committing any breach of the blatute, if he was doing so, but the practice had now been stopped. All these facts were admitted, and the question was whether they constituted «n offence. Inspector Pender agreed with rhe statement that Truobridge was giving the lunch ifor Is 6d up to a certain time, bub then he made arrangements to supply beer and make it 2s. Mr. Skerrett said that a change in price was made on Bth Novembar, but the Is 6d lunch .also included beer. Mr. Haselden, S.M.— Well, I suppose Mr. Truebridge 'sells the potatoes he gives with he mutton chop? Mr. Skerrett said he surmised the question the Court would ask, but he would like to argue the matter. Accordingly the facts were taken as admitted, though Mr.' Truebridge may be called, and the case was adjourned till Monday for" argument.