ALLEGED SLY-GROG SELLING

Gisborne Times, Volume L, Issue 5071, 14 January 1919, Page 3

ALLEGED SLY-GROG SELLING

1! ■ ' NGATAPA STOREKEEPER '■£ CHARGED.

£ SEQUEL TO OFFICER’S VISIT

“A WEARY TRAVELLER..’*

A charge of alleged “sly grog,” selling wa s heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. Barton, S.M., when a Ngatapa store and boarding-house keeper, named William Baynes, appeared to answer a charge of bavins sold one bottle of beer to Henry Wyllie at the time a constable stationed at 'Gisborne, at Ngatapa on Boxing Day. Mr Finn appeared for the defendant who pleads ed not guilty. Ex-Oonstable Wyllie stated that in company with Constable Maloney and Detective McLeod he visited ac-

, cused’s premises at Ngatapa at 9.15 p.m. with the object of purchasj ing liquor. The house was in dark- ; ness and witness knocked at the door j and accused answered. Witness ask- : ed him for a packet of cigarettes, and accused took him over to the store ' which is about half a chain from the house and gave him the cigarettes. Witness then asked him for a drink and accused took him back to the ! house. There was a demijohn in the kitchen containing draught beer. ; Witness drank the beer offered him and was ofFered another. Defendant then refused payment for the beer and witness asked for a bottle of beer to take home with him, and accused gave him a bottle of beer. Witness gave accused a one pound note, and accused said he did not have change. Witness then tendered a half-crown, which Baynes said was “near enough.” Counsel (cross-examining): Have you stated to the Court, all the conversation that took place between you? Witness: No. Did you say you had travelled 14 miles?—Yes.

And were completely knocked up ? Yes.

Had you travelled 14 miles immediately before? —Yes. From where ? —Gisborne.

HowP—By car. Did that knock you up? —No. You told him a lie?—We were determined to catch this man. And you told this man the lie? — Yes.

Did you not tender him a ten shilling note?—Yes.

So you made a mistake when you said a pound note? —Yes. He refused to charge for the glass of beer he gave you and wanting to be sociable he also had oue? —Yes. And he said “Have another”?’* Aud you did? —Yea. When you told him this fairytale about travelling 14 miles did you ask him what distance Patutahi was from Ngatapa, and did! he ask whether you wore going to stay the night ? —Yes. And you said as it was a long way you would like a drink on the way ? Yes.

And being a poor traveller who 1 had gone 15 miles and was dead tired be gave you the bottle produced?---He sold it to me. Witness added that the accused go' the bottle from tho rear of the house Witness. tendered the ten shilling note for -the first drink and it was refused. The same thing happened in regard to the second drink.. He admitted it was when he told the defendant that he had to walk to Patutahi that he was given the bottle of beer. The detective and Constable Maloney were quite close when witness went to the store. Aiie defendant kept the only boarding-nous-at Ngatapa. . , Constable Maloney stated that he knew the accused well. ' , Witness said that m consequence ot complaints received he visited the defendant’s place in company with Constable Wyllie and Detective McLeod. Constable Wyllie went to the back door and knocked. . Accused came to the door in his pyjamas and he, in company with Constable Wyllie, ve to the store a few yards away. . Tho -j were in there for about ten minutes, and reappeared and went to th» boarding-house. They were in boarding-house for about ten minuses and Constable Wyllie came out and showed them the bottle of beer. He knew that Wyllie did not have the beer in his possession because he changed his clothes and got » rough suit at witness’s place at Patu tahi When Wyllie produced the bottle of beer witness and McLeod went to the front door. Accused came to the door and the detective informed him that he intended to search his premises for grog. Accused said “All right,” and produced a candle and the officers searched the premises. In one of the back bedrooms they found the empty demiSms produced. Thev went into the kitchen and found another demijohn with a small quantity of-'beer. .. in " store at the tack a full “demijohn’ and a small case containing 14 bottles of beer. The, case was addressed to A Pritchard, caie or Baynes. On the counter in the store there was a glass which smelt stronglyof whisky. A number of capsules of beer bottles were jittered all along the floor, whilst behind the counter were three bottles of methylated spirits unopened. Witness called Wyllie into the store in front of the accused, and Detective McLeod informed accused that he would be charged with selling liquor. lne defendant said “I did' not sell you any. I gave you two drinks. Constable Wyllie then produced the bottle and the accused said, “I do not know anything about it. I did not give it to you.” The detective then asked the accused about the full demijohn o beer and accused said it belonged to Anderson, one of the boarders they saw Anderson and lie denied that, tne beer was his. The accused was not present at the conversation. The Magistrate: Then it is not evidence against him. ’. Witness continuing said that the only other person in the boardinghouse besides accused was a man named Anderson. 'The house, as far as witness could remember, was a one storey building. There was a large case containing a quantity of empty bottles. Underneath some soft drink bottles they found 32 empty .beer bottles, three Canadian Club whisky bottleh, two No. 19 whisky bottles, one other bottle and two Hennessey s Three Star brandy bottleri. Replying to the Magistrate -.witness said b« did hot know how many people habitually lived in -the bonrain gh°Mr Finn (cross-examining) : What do you say about the case that was sent to Pritchard care of Baynes? Witness: He generally gets his beer addressed in names such as that. Why do you say that; have -you any malice against tnis man ?

Witness: No. Do you mean that, after your evidence to-day ?-—Y es. , Detective McLeod corroborated the evidence of the previous , witnesses and added, that he said to ~ed “You will be charged with sly gro* sefUng ” which the defendant denied but skid that he gave Wyllie- two drinks.' It was common ltnowled,. both in Ngatapa and Lisbome tha this was a sly grog shop, and that<the accused obtained drink from towni m the name of other people. It w*£ the common practice of sb £ °g mg.

Counsel contended that if the defendant had that reputation witnesses should hav c been called to bo crossexamined. Andereon, the-man alluded to, had been a criminal and denied having had the beer. This concluded too case for Hie. prosecution. * Counsel for the defence contended that there was jio evidence on which the accused could be convicted. The defendant was charged with selling beer. The police had laid a trap for the accused. He contended that there was no proof evidence that the bottle produced contained a fermented liquor within the meaning of the Act.

-The Magistrate said that he agreed that counsel’s contention might apply so far as medicated wine was concerned.

Counsel further submitted that ail informant under such circumstances was an accomplice and it was very dangerous to accept such evidence unless it was corroborated.

Pritchard, of Ngatapa, said' that he ordered five gallon© of beer for the holidays, and he had got two demi- . johns containing two gallons each and got a case of beer. Witness produced the receipt .from L. D. Nathan and Co., of Gisborne, for five gallons of beer. When he went to Baynes for the case of beer witness was informed by the defendant that he would have to go to the police to get it. ' He wrote a letter to the Sergeant of Police at Gisborne, but forgot to post it. The accused.had always been fair and square with witness. The consignment of beer referred to was the first witness had had from L. D! Nathan and Co.

The Magistrate said that ho was satisfied the charge was substantiated. He had to decide two points, (1) Did the accused sell the bottle to Constable Wyllie and (2) Did lie sell beer? There seemed to be no doubt about the matter and he was satisfied thaU tne Bottle was supplied to Constable Wyllie and the evidence of the constable as to the sale. Accused denied having given the bottle to Constable Wyllie. The Magistrate imposed a penalty of £lO9, and ordered him to pay £4 18s costs, the fine and cpsts to be recoverable by distress in default three months’ imprisonment. A fortnight was given in which to pay the amount. No order was made in respect to the liquor and utensils. Mr. Finn asked' the Bench to fix security for appeal, and the Magistrate replied that he would do so when the appeal was lodged.