THE ILLICIT STILL CASE AT TIMARU.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8124, 22 March 1887, Page 5

THE ILLICIT STILL CASE AT TIMARU.

At the Timaru R.M. Court yesterday, the hearing of the charge against Joseph and James Matthews and James Bill (the last named had been discharged) was resumed and concluded before J. S. Beswiok, Esq., R.M., aud H. J. Le Cren, Esq. Mr White, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Messrs Hay and Hamersley defended. For the defence (the case for the prosecution having closed at the previous hearing), Mr Hay called Thomas Tresize, who described the locality, roads, fences, &c. He said it was impossible for anyone at Matthews’ house to see objects at the spot where the plant was found. ■'•The boiler or body of the still lay in Matthews’ stable, and it could be

seen by anyone. He had been told by the Matthews that it was for the preparation of duck feed. In cross-examination, witness said he did not remember cautioning Matthews not to have anything to do with a still, or fa>TK« g Sergeant Livingstone that he had given such caution. The road past the gap had been used for some traffic in former times. A. J. Robert, a Maori, deposed to finding the still head on the ploughed land and giving it to Bills, who took it home to • Matthews. James Bill, the accused, who had been discharged, corroborated this, and added that Matthews said he did not know what the thing was for. He threw it up in the loft, and never saw it again till the police brought it down. To the Bench : Witness said he did not know much of the track round the ploughed land, and never took a dray there. E. M'Cormick had often seen the tin, and thought if the top were taken off it would “do grand’’ for preparing feed. It used to stand in^Hamilton’s yard. Cross-examined: He remembered that Hamilton was once fined and imprisoned for distilling, or having illicit whiskey in the house. He never saw such a machine used for pig feed. Robert Baxter (of Baxter Brothers) was a very loquacious witness, and had to be checked from running away from the point and entertaining the Court with reminiscences and personal narratives. Being cross-examined, he said he really could not say what the still head was for. It might do very well for a watering-can. (Laughter.) The two accused were permitted to give evidence. Joseph Matthews said: He was not living, only calling occasionally, at his brother's house, and had never seen the head-piece of the still. He knew of no gap in the fence. He could not clearly remember what conversation he had, or took part in, about the matter. James Matthews, the other accused, said that Hamilton used to cart water in the vessel, and promised it to witness for the purpose of boiling water. When he got it, witness put it in the stable. Cross-examined: He did not know what Bill did with the still head. When he saw the police he fancied they had come about some distillery business. When, he told the police he knew nothing. about the still head, he was wrong, because the boy Bill had handed it to him when it was found. The reason he said be did not know was that he feared to criminate himself. He never thought of this being an apparatus for distilling purposes till the police came to the house. He did not

know what, except fear, could have induced him (on his brother recommending him, in the presence of the police, to say all he knew) to tell his brother not to be a fool. This closed the case for the defence. Mr Hamersley submitted that guilty knowledge was not proved, or the actual custody of the articles. Mr White urged that proof of possession alone was needed. The Bench took Mr White’s view of the case, and fined James Matthews JBIOO and costs. Joseph they discharged, there being no evidence against him on which to convict. Mr Hay gave notice of sppeal to the District Court. His Worship thought it a great pity to send cases up for re-hearing, for that was what it amounted to, since it would simply mean opening up the case again with entirely new evidence, gathered to supply the .mend the defect of the Supreme ™? PP^f bould *>e to the ’ • n y *kat such appeals right Of »ppAaV r anj-.-nf I- jr,stantial suieties h ving been required, the Court rose.