FINED £l5

Evening Star, Issue 21519, 18 September 1933, Page 11

FINED £ls

“BLY-GROGGER” CONVICTED MANUFACTURED “A PUBLIC MENACE*' A fine of £ls was imposed on Eric George Velenski in the Police Court this morning after he had been convicted on charges of manufacturing wine for sale without a license and selling liquor without a license. The case for the prosecution had already been heard, evidence for the defence being taken this morning. Velenski pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr White. Mr Green, of Adams Bros., conducted the case for the Crown. Mr White said that he understood that,-as far. as the law was concerned, His Worship had held that a prima facie case had been established. His Worship said that this was so. Mr White said that he wished to address the court on the point as to whether a prima facie case had been established on the facts. Mr White went on to review the case for the prosecution, which he described, in the first place, as a police trap. He detailed the evidence of the two principal police' witnesses, 'Pratt and Constable Chaytor, and claimed that there were several serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in their respective stories. It had been stated that a watch had been kept on Velenski’s house, but no •evidence was produced to show that men had been resorting there for drinking. The police had also failed to show that the wine produced was similar to the wine in the casks or other bottles. Mr White said that the case for the prosecution was full of serious contradictions from beginning to end, and submitted that the case should be dismissed on the facts. His Worship held that a prima facie case had been established. Mr White then called the defendant, who said that when he commenced making home brew he got the recipe from a weekly paper. The first lot he made was not a success, and the second brew was only working when the police came and took it away. The defendant denied that he knew Pratt, and added that if Pratt had come to his house he was not aware of it. Velenski said that the wine was for “ parties, anniversaries, birthdays, and evenings,” of which they were expecting three within six weeks—his wife’s and his own birthday, and their wedding anniversaries. He had never sold liquor to Pratt or anyone else. George Henry Burns, a brother-in-law of the defendant, said that there had never been any suggestion that the wine was for sale while he was at the house. James Cottrell, another relative, gave similar evidence. The Magistrate! in giving his decision, stated that the evidence given for the prosecution by Pratt and Constable Chaytor was at variance in certain particulars, and counsel for the defeme contended that the variance was of such a nature as to render that evidence unworthy of treatment. Pratt’s evidence was, in a sense, that of an accomplice, but he stated that his young brother had been procuring liquor from somewhere, and he wanted to find out that origin. It was for this reason that he interested himself in the matter, a course that was laudable and praiseworthy. His Worship’s definite impression was that he had given his evidence fairly and truthfully, and, although there were slight discrepancies in the stories of Pratt and the constable he accepted the evidence that the man they saw at the house was Velenski and that two bottles were sold to them as definite. Tho defendant absolutely denied the transaction, but His Worship was not impressed with the manner in which he gave evidence. He thought that there could be no question that the evidence for the prosecution was true, and that Velenski had not given a correct statement of the fact. His Worship held that Velenski did sell tho wine and that the facts established that it had keen manufactured by him. He would be convicted on both counts.

Mr Green stated that the offence was looked upon as a very serious one. The fact that the Revenue Department was .being defrauded was not the most serious aspect of the case. Pratt’s younger brother, who was sixteen years of age, had been found intoxicated by this wine, and his was not an isolated case. There had been many complaints from parents that young people from fourteen to twenty years of age had been supplied with the wine, and that it had been given to young girls of the same age. The liquor contained over 11 per cent, alcohol, and its effect on these young people (who were really children) was highly injurious. Mr Green invited His Worship to inspect the samples held in the Police Station. His Worship; And taste it? v Mr Green: [ would not imperil your Worship’s life by asking you to taste it. Mr White: That’s ridiculous.

Mr Green added that the liquor was a public menace, and asked for the imposition of a severe penalty. Velenski, he said, had sold at least fifty bottles in a week. Mr Green suggested that the wine should be destroyed. _ Mr White: I am _ not surprised to hear my friend describe this matter as a very serious one, considering ■ the firm bo comes from. Mr Bundle (sharply): That is a most improper remark, Mr White. It was most unfortunate and should never have been made. Is it withdrawn? Mr White: I had no intention of saying anything that might have any unpleasant consequences. I intended it as a joke more than anything else. Mr Green then said that he would accept Mr White’s apology. The Magistrate said that it had been itated that a quantity of wine had been sold to young people. However, there was no evidence to that effect before him, nor was there any that men had been resorting to the premises. Neither had it been shown that drunken people had been on or near the premises, and consequently he could not give too much weight to these contentions. Velenski would be fined £ls on the first charge, with costs of £2 5s 6d. He would be convicted on the second count, and would have to pay the Crown solicitor’s fee of £3 3s, with court costs of 10s. His Worship also directed that the utensils should be confiscated and the liquor destroyed.