PROHIBITION BREACH

Northern Advocate, 22 February 1926, Page 8

PROHIBITION BREACH

TWO MEN CONVICTED. FINED £5 EACH. I For an alleged breach of his prohibition order on February 14, George I Pelham Murray appeared before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the Whangarei Magistrate’s Court this morning. \V illiam Diamond was also charged, with procuring liquor for Murray, knowing that he was a prohibited person. Mr. Steadman . appeared for Murray and Mr Trimmer for Diamond. Both accused, pleaded not guilty. Constable Sutherland stated tho c at 1.30 a.m. of the day ini question he heard voices in a building. He knocked at the door and it was opened by the sweeper. Witness walked in and saw Murray and Diamond sitting with a bottle of whisky and another of water between them. They were under the influence of liquor, but not drunk. The constable asked Diamond, if he knew that, Murray was prohibited, and he replied "Yes. ” Witness had been told of Murray’s drinking about the town, but had not been able to catch him. Witness had known Diamond for two years. During the last 12 months he had been more or less saturated with drink, and complaints had been made of his procuring drink for prohibited men. On the sweeper being called Mr. Steadman objected to his evidence being taken, and in reply to his Worship submitted that on account of his mental capacity he was not competent to give evidence. "We will see,” said his Worship, and the witness objected to stepped into tlie box. He gave evidence that the two men walked in and said they would not be five minutes there. They walked into the office and produced the liquor. Murray had one drink and Diamond had about four. Witness asked them to go, but they asked him to wait. Cross-examined by Mr. Steadman, witness said Murray brought in the whisky, and he "told him straight.” Re-examined by Senior-Sergeant O’Grady, witness said he did ■ not see. anyone produce the liquor. Murray had seen him since and had told him to say nothing about it. The Senior-Sergeant said that he had received several complaints of Diamond supplying Murray with liquor and of the latter drinking. About three weeks ago he cautioned Diamond. Murray, giving evidence, said that besides being a signwriter lie was also ' a musician. On the night of February 13 he was playing at the Town Hall and in the interval some men asked him if he would like a drink. He said ' that he did not have time. They sKid, "Here, take this,” and he took a bottle, which was about three parts full. The accused wanted a copy of a piece of music and so he took the bottle down to a building. On the way he met Diamond and they both, went inside the building, where accused put the bottle down aad invited Diamond to drink. Jle (Murray) was quite certain that he had only had one drink. Diamond never handed the liquor to : him: In reply to Mr. Trimmer, Murray < said he was positive he brought the ' liquor. Diamond did not entice him to drink. Mr, Trimmer submitted that ’ there : was no evidence that Diamond procur- i ed liquor, nor that he incited Murray < or assisted him to drink the liquor. 1 He also Held that the evidence of the j: sweeper could not be taken. 1 Diamond corroborated Murray’s evi- : dence that the latter produced the liquor and invited him to drink. It was an untruth that ho had been saturated with drink, as during the past , month he had been doing miniature painting, which required a steady i hand. At the conclusion of evidence his : Worship met counsel’s objection to the sweeper’s evidence by stating that though he thought his evidence was good, he could do without it and would decide on the evidence of the police and the accused themselves. It I semed to him, said his Worship, that the accused had gone to a great deal of trouble to construct a case against themselves. If there was no proof that Murray procured the liquor or that Diamond assisted, lie did not know what proof was. Each accused would be convicted and fined £5. Costs amounted to 9s in Murray’s case and 7s in Diamond's. Application for time to pay the fine was refused.