POLICE COURT.—Friday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1433, 20 June 1868, Page 5

POLICE COURT.— Friday.

. (Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., ~B.il.) ,DiurNK.Bn:xzse; — Margaret Condron,- a most . wretched lobking woman,wai convicted of this offence, and received the usiial sentence;— The Bench said that she ought to be put in hospital; and isiued an immediate committal for that purpose, — Jaraet Heaton did not appear to a lummoni for the tame offence, and a warrant wfli accordingly ieeued for hie apprehension. . : Breach oi'THßDiSTii.i.i.Tioir Act. — Rowland Campion was charged by Alexander Rose, of H.M. Custome, with, a breach of the 14th clause of the Distillation Act, 1866, and Amendment Act, 1867, by knowingly permitting within eix months past (to wit, on 12th June, 1868,) the sale or disposal of spirits, on which the full duty had not been paid.— Defendant ploadei not guilty.—■Mγ. Brookfield conducted the prosecution on the part of the Customs House authorities, and Mr. Beveridge was for the defence.—Witnesses in this case being ordered out of Court, Mr Brookfield proceeded to read before the Court the clauses of the Acts under which the prosecution was laid, and proceeded to call his witnesses.— Alexander Hose, deposed: I hold the necessary writ to enable me to search for stills, Ac, in house;. I received information from a man called Leggett, and in consequence went to the Exohange Hotel, Queenstreet, kept by Mr. Oarrpion last Tuesday, in company with Leggett and Herepath, Custom-house messenger. I saw Mr. Campion then, and informed him I was a Custom's officer, and that I believed he had illicit spirits, or spirits on which duty had not been paid, in his possession, to which he made no reply. I produced a writ of assistance, which he read. I went to two kege under the counter, and from information received I seized the underneath one. (The keg was here produoed and identified by witnese). The keg was marked " Rum." It is in the same state as when seized, except one bottle drawn off. I hold the bottle in hand. —Mr. Buveridge asked for " a Custom-house offiotr's v*4t mecum," which was produced by Mr. Hose and the sample handed to the Bench for inspection. I Emelt the stuff and considered it illicit spirit, which has an unpleasant emell, and not like genuine spirits. The keg was afterwards taken to the Customs. Mr. Campion wae with me when I seized it. I requested him te git a light that I might go to tho cellar. He did so, and accompanied me to the cellars. I took Legget with-me. Campion led the way. When I was at a certain keg Logget stopped me. I found an empty bottled beer cask with the heads knocked out round the keg. The keg had no mark of contents. I smelt the keg, and asked Mr. Campion if it v>l duty paid, and as he did not anuwer satisfactorily I seized it. The amell led me to consider it illicit spirit. (Witness then identified the sample bottle from the second keg). The first keg wae nearly empty. There was no tap in it. There was a cork which is now sealed down. The second keg was about one quarter out. In tho second keg there was a plug.—Mr. Beveridge objected to the examination, and said that tVie ilefui.dunt should have been cautioned by Mr. Rose that his answers would be used in evidence against him.—The Bench : Mr. Campion road the writ, and must have been well aware of the position of Mr. Hoee.—Mr. Bevoridgo submitted that in the Supremo Court, before His Honor Justico Moore, it had been held that such questions and answers were not to ho received in evidence. —Tho Bench knew no precedent for the exclusion of such evidence, and said that the Act laid down the law on the subject vsry clearly, and that tho onus probandi laid upon the defendant, and apart from this question he will have to prove the payment of the duty. —Mr. Brookfiold urged that in criminal cases the prisoner is in custody, but in the present case such was not the cise, and consequently the Supreme Court precedent would not apply. Mr. Brookfield quoted from Taylor on Evidence, page 748, in defonce of his argument.—But Mr. Beveridge contended that the remark* of the defendant were not voluntarily given. In this case the liberty ot Mr. Campion was in peril, and he stood in the same position in this reipoct as a criminal —The Bench said that ae far as admission was concerned, Mr. Rose did not assume the guilt of defendant in his words ; he merely asked a simplo question.—Mr. Bevoridgo urged thut the consequence! of a conviction would be ao serious that in case of a doubt defendant should have the benefit. —Tho Bench said defendant could not have had moro caution than he had after the previous acts ■ of Mr. Rose in showing his writ and seizing the first ko£, and said that it had no power to stop the examinntion of witness. A note of objection to the evidence of conversation at the request of Mr. Beveridge, was then made—Mr. Hose's examination continued : We came up from the collar, and I gave tho keg in charge to Parker, the messenger. In the passage I asked if he could produce evidence of the duty being paid. Ho aaked mo what would be tho penalty, and I showed him the Act of Amendment, 1866, and told him the penalty was £50. Ho me to go aside in another room. I left Parker in charge of kegs, and went into the room accompanied by Leggett. Hβ referred again to the penalty, and accused Leggott of having behaved badly, and. said that it wai a d dirty piece of business, and asked if the penalty could not be pnid without going into Court. He admitted the stuff was not from a bonded warehouse, that it would be injurious to hie business to come before the Court. By Mr. Beveridge: The words used were "apart from the results of the caae," or words to that effect. Diu not eay how he knew it had not come from a bonded warehouse. Aiked if he could not pay penalty without publicity. Told him it could not be done. Told him to go down snd see tho Collector on tho subject. I said somo of the stuff appeared to have been used, and he appealed to Leggett, saying, "Very littl-i of that has been used John, you know that yourself." Leggett said, " You know what your orders to me were ae well as myself." He aeked me when ho should «ome down and see the Collector. He asked my advice, and I recommended him to plead guilty and throw himielf on the mercy of the Court. John Leggett pointed out the two kegs as contiining illicit epirita. Mr. Campion afterwardi came down to »ee tho Collector. I was present at the interview. Mr. Campion admitted to the Collector that it was evidently illicit stuff, that it was on the premise? when he took the place. Hβ st»ted that ho had Been too much of it in hie life. He β-ud he had told his barman not to sell it. He told the Collector that the former occupier was Mr. Poreh, and that since he had the premises no illicit stuff had been supplied. He shortly afterwards loft. Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge : Leggett went to Campion's with me, and gave me information. It was about 1o'clock. Campion came to me in the hall. I said, " I am a Custom-House officer," and produced a writ of assistance, asking if I should read it alone, or if he wae satisfied with the production. He eaid he would read it himself. I believe he did read it. He had time to do so. I stated my suspicions, and he said nothing. (The evidence was then in Mr. Brookfield's examination.) I thiok a barmaid and a vouth were present. He gave me every facility ior searching. I diu not recommend him to plead guilty to the Commissioner at first. It wae after he had asked mo the amount of penalty, and we had eonversation in the room, that I advised him so. I will notswear that I did not say it would be better for him to make a frank admission before we entered the room. It was after he had spoken of tho ponalty. I was not moro than twenty minutes on the premises altogether.— Robert B. Lusk,:-Provincial Accountant and Treasurer, said that he issued the public-house licenses. — Mr Beveridge objected to Mr. Luak being aaked who was the present license holder. The license itself was evidence, and that secondary evidence was madmiasabie. The Bench overruled this objection, and Mr. Luak's examination was continued :—I issued a license to Joseph Cochrane for that house.—Mr. Brookfield then said—Mr. Lusk holds a letter from the Clerk of the Court, certifying that the license was transferred from Joseph Cochrane.— The Bench : The document is not necessary itself since the contents of it are not required in evidence.—Mr. Bevoridge then asked for a note to be made of his objection.—The certificate from Mr. Lodge, Clerk of the Court, was then handed in and read.—John Leggett (witness was greeted by the audience with hiesef) deposed: I am a settler in Auckland. A short time ago I was barman and general servant to Mr. Campion. I entered his employ five weeks ago last Wednesday. A few days ago" I gave information to Mr. Bose with reepesfc to some illicit spirits, in consequence of which he and I went to the Exchange. I was present when two kegs were seized ; one in the bar and the other in the cellar. I pointed out the kegs to Mr. Bose. I had known of the kegs a few days after entering hie service. (Witness identified the keg that was in the fcar.) When I entered his employ the keg in the bar was tapped and some drawn out, and I was told by Mr. Campion only to use it in mixing. He told me regarding the other keg which was in the cellar, that he had an order from Mr. James for five gallons of brandy, and that I was to put a quart or half a gallon of thin stuff in if I thought it would etnnd it. I put in a quart. He told me to be careful and not put too much, in leit it should be detected, as it wae stuff he

had got at 12s a gallon, and it was made in the Waikato. Mr. .Tames complained of the quality, and I gave him otter bi andy instead of it. Defendant told me to keep two bottles of the brandy mixed in t)ui bar ,ind serve it in hot drinks to the girls and Maoris ■who come in at night "half-slewed." vl did so, and served it out first to Kuropoun women, who com-i plained of it. I mixed two bottles. Theee treats were reserved for the lower bar. There were none in the upper. I sold the liquor up to last Tuesday. These instructions were given to me by Mr. Campion. I heard all the conversation between Mr. Bose and Campion. In reply to Mr. Rose's statement that he suspected him of having illicit spirits, Campion said, " Yes, what about it ?" Mr. Eose said if such was the case he had come to seize it. Mr. Hose read over the writ ae soon as he had asked if he whs Mr. Campion In return to Mr. Rose's questions whether it had paid duty, Campion said he did not think he was bound to answer the question. Mr. Boee asked had I got any more He said " ask John." (Witness then corroborated the evidence of Mr. Hose as to the seizure of the second teg). Mr. Rose then took out a paper and informed Campion of the consequences. At the top of the etairs Campion said it was drink on which duty hadnotbeenpaid,anithat if we wouldcome into the room ho would speak to us. Ha then said he was ■willing to pay £50 fine, rather than let it come before a Magistrate. Mr. Hose told him to como ud in nn hour's time and see the Collector. He was asked by Mr. Rise if he bad authorised the sale'of it. He eiid " not much, ask John." I seid " I receivod my initructions from you, and will tell them when called upon." I was not present at the interview with the Collector.—Cross-examined by Mr. Beveridge: I am a settler in Auckland, iind have no other occupation. I am not now in Mr. Campion's employ. T entered it five weeks ago last Wednesday, and left it last Tuesday about 10 o'clock. I was discharged from his service. I went to the Custom House alraoet immediately afterwards. I considered it an act of public duty. I had not been very long in hie servics before I thought of it, and spoke to several parties in town ; I considered that T should have an opportunity of seizing a larger quantity by remaining there. 1 would remain in any man's employ with such an object. (Mr. Beveridge expressed a hope that witness would not long continues setiler in Auckland) — During all the time I was there I sold this stuff. Mr. Unmpion told me Lhat he could gat more. He too k me into his confidence a few days after I joined him. I had three or four different conversations with him on the subject. He told me to use the stuff. I did not tell others in the house not to use it I know Bridget, a barmaid there. I did not instruct her not to sell it. I gave her directions how to sell it about this night week. Mrs. Campion never spoke to me about it. Part of one day Mrs. Campion kept the bar. I do not remember anj conversation with her about the stuff. I was turned away because ho could not afford to keep me as he said. I was not the only one dismissed. Witneis identified the following letter as his own writing, and it was then read by Mr. Beveridge :—"Bridget: Will you try und come to Mr. Brookfield's office, Boon, he wants to see it—Yours, T-eggett " I afterwards went to get a few glasses of beer. Mr. James told me that he had tasted tho liquor, and it was below proof. I told Mr. James that Campion knew nothing about it, and that he was to eay nothing about it to Campion. I told a lie to serve Campion. I could not distinctly hear the conversation between Mr. Boee and Campion. 1 swear that I heard Mr. Hose read a document to Campion and explain it, but do not know what ic wus.—Heexamined by Mr. Brookfield :—Lust Saturday, when ho gave me notice, he said it was becaues he could not keep to many servants, that he was going to take the lowsr bar; Miss Porch tho upper; and Mrs. Campion the cooking. We parted on good term;, and he offered me pecuniary assistance aod lettera of chtraiiter. I was a genera 1 servant. —(The Court here adjourned until 2 o'clock.) —On resuming business, Mr. H. J. McKellar, Collector of H.M. Customs, deposed, that ho had a conversation with Campion about the seizure. The stuff was not such as could have been got in any bonded W; rehouse in Auckland.—Mr. Brookfield requested a production of the license, which Mr. Beveridge declined.—Mr. Brookfield then proved service of notice to produce.—This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Beveridge then rose, in defence, and expressed regret on account of the unavoidable absence of Mr. MacCormick, who had been retained with him. Jde submitted that the penalty impending upon a breach of the 14th section, applied only to a second or subsequent offence, and therefore the case did not come under that section. Ho further urged that the offence was not embraced under the 20th section, as that required that the sale was to be " knowingly permitted." That the 14th section did not apply either, for that not a word had beon said by his learned friend about any duty being payable upon the spirits. He argued that supposing the spirits seized to he illicit, no duty would be payab'e upon them, for it was only upon spirits brought into the colony, and not on such as wis rnanufactuted in the country. That the Act contemplated spirits upon which the full duty was leviable, and he submitted that on that count his learned lriend was entirely out of Court. That if the evidence of Mr. Rose was Btripped of the answers of Campion, to which he had objected ; it proved nothing but the seizure of tho kege, and ho should prove that the kege were lawfully in defendant'* possession by the etidence of the party of whom he bought the premises. As for the evidence of the informer, who, as the learned gentleman eaid, had remained like a terrier at a rat for five wee s for the iole purpose oi betraying his master, he would say that it was unworthy of belief. That Leggett had served the stuff out until he was discharged, when he immediately informed. That if Campion's evidence was inadmisaable the Court would examine with Care the evidence of the rest.— Mr. Beveridge then c* ed the witnesses for the defence. Upon the name of Rowland Campion being called, Mr. Brookfield objected, on the ground that a summary conviction was impending, under Lord Brougham's Act; and quoted "Taylor on Evidence" to show that Campion, being a quasi criminal, subject to fine or imprisonment, wae nor a competent witness. After much learned discussion and quotation of authorities on both sides, the Bench decided that Campion's evidence could not bo admitted, and—-John Porch, deposed : I was in charge of the Exchange Hotel at the beginning of the year. On the 9th Jan. last I transferred the hotel and etoek to Mr. Campion. There were two kegs in the cellar, and I beli«ve there was some stuff in them. There was rum of a very inferior quality in one of them. It was not fit for use. I bought it with the goodwill of the house. I cannot identify the kegs. [The m.n Leggett here advanced to Mr. Brookfield, and whispered, to which Mr. Beveridge took objection, and after a little friendly sparring between the two learned gentlemen, Mr. Beveridge expressed hia disgust at " such a scoundrel" sitting near him. The Court, however, ordered Legett to remain in Court] —Bridget Gafnoy deposed : lam barmaid at Mr. Campion's bar. I was there when Leggett was there. I was present when the spirits were seized.—Mr. Brookfield objected to this witness, on the ground that she was only called as contradictory evidence, which could not be allowed, as no dates had beon given by Leggett of the conversations between him and Campion. This was the whole of the defence. Mr. Brookfield again rose, and, after stating that the information having been laid, the authorities had no option but to proceed in tho case said that as to the 14th section of the Act the intent was quite evident. He then road the 20th section and afterwards the 6th section, by which illicit spirits were clearly dutiable, and he pressed for o conviction on thegroan.i that Mr. Curupion was well aware of his liability. The Bench said that the first point to be considered was whether the defendant was guilty as per information, and whether the evidence supported that assumption. The Court agreed with much of what the learned oonnsel had eaid about the evidence of Leggett being unworthy of credence, but looking at the evidence of Mr. Rose and Mr. McKellar, hi« evidence is corroborated in every particular. The witness Porch had rnido bad worse, for he alleged that the kega were in the cellar,and it was evidont.therefore.that one must have been moved under the counter where it was found. Anyhow, that the onusprobandi would be on the defendant (a decision of '. hief Justice Abbott, quoted in a very parallel case), and that the 6th section of the Act cut away all ground of objection as to the liability of the illicit spirits. That the interpretation of the 14th section was evident, although, perhaps, clumsily wordod, and that the cancelling of the license must of necessity follow upon a conviction. The Bench had no alternative, therefore, but to find defendant guilty, and to inflict the fine of £60 and a cancelling of thelicense, or in default four months' imprisonment with hard l ttDOr . Mr. Beveridge then asked for time to be allowed to his client for payment, which the Court could not grant. Mr. Beveridge then stated that he should give notice of appeal, and the money was paid into Court. j __^_^___^___

' Shootin& Stars,—Oraok ehotu.— Funch.