PROHIBITED PERSONS AND THEIR "FRIENDS."

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 27 June 1911, Page 4

PROHIBITED PERSONS AND THEIR "FRIENDS."

FINE FOR PROCURING "LIQUORIMPORTANT JUBGKMENT. THE QUESTION OP DATES. Mr. J. S. Evans, S.M., this morning delivered lii. s reserved judgment in tho case of Police against George Bay, who was charged .with procuring liquor for a prohibited person, Mr. Atkinson appeared for the defendant. Judgment wag. as follows: — The defendant is charged with supplying liquor to a prohibited person. The information charges him with supplying "on or about the 19th of May last." The evidence for the prosecution shows that the defendant supplied liquor to a prohibited person before the 23rd of May, and about 3 or 4 weeks before the 9th of June. Pour weeks before the 9th of June is the 12th of May. The place where the liquor was supplied is fixed; but the date cannot be definitely fixed to a day certain. The defendant doilies in toto the whole charge. I have fust to consider then whether the defendant did supply the liquor at all. The case for the prosecution depends on the evidence of Harold George Muncastei', the person supplied. He is an unwilling witness.' He disclosed the name of tho defendant in tho course of his evidence in a previous case under compulsion from the Court. In the previous case I compelled hiin under the authority of a Section of "The Evidence Act, 190S " to say whether any other person liacl supplied him with liquor, and on his answering in the affirmative, I compelled him to give the name of the person. The witness was. most reluctant to give the name of the person. His 'evidence in thi & case was also given with great reluctance. Th e defendant admits that lie frequents the back yard where the liquor was' said to be handed oyer, and has given no reason for his doing, and can give no reason why Muncastcr should blame him for what he did not do. The defendant admits he knew that Muncaster was prohibited. In view of the whole of the circumstances I accept Muncaster 's evidence as against that o* the defendant. The only question is, can I convict where the day is not fixed with certainty? It is quite clear that whenever pos>scible, the date should be fixed with reasonable certainty, a s well for the purpose of defending the charge as for proving the conviction for- the offence or any subsequent 'Charge. It is, however, laid down in ''iPaley on> Convictions," St'h Edition, at page 213-215, that ifc i.s settled law that a conviction charging an offence between certain dates is-good. Sueh. a conviction would cover all offences .of the kind charged, committed between the dates' mentioned. The dates musti be within the time limited for information.. I quite recognise ,that the 'Court .should vry carefully weigh the evidence and surrounding circumstances before recording a conviction when the date cannot be fixed with reasonable certainty; but in a ease of this kind when the principal witness •is a very reluctant one, obviously anxious to shield the defendant .as far as possible, and cither will not,' or cannot, remember the exact date, I think I am justified in fixing dates, warranted by the evidence, between which the offence occurred, in order to prevent a wrong-doer from escaping the consequences of his wrong'dorii'g an purely technical gaxnwidis. 'Mamcaster fixe s the time before the 23r.d May, and 3 to 4 Aveek s before the 9th of June. I fix the extreme of"these dates as the dates between which tho offence was committed, namely between the 12th May and the 2,3 nd May. The defendant denies that ho ever supplied Muncaster afc any time, and Jie is therefor© not prejudiced by the exact day -not being fixed. It is not a case where he may have supplied him either at a n earlier date, or at a later, date. I find it is' a fact that he did supply hirn between 'these dates-, and he is convicted accordingly, and fined £5 and ordered to pay 9s Court costs.