POLICE COURT NEWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13303, 9 October 1906, Page 7

POLICE COURT NEWS.

THE BLIGHT SPECIFIC CASE. PRISONER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. At the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., Henry Alfred Bowers was charged with having obtained, from David Roberts £1 by means of a false pretence, and further with having obtained £10 in. a similar manner from John Henry Bardie. "■.; j ;-' ■," ' p -■ * .Sub-Inspector Gordon conducted the prosecution, and Mr. J. 0. Martin defended. In order to save time the two cases were taken together. .' . :V •> v Sub-Inspector Gordon said the accused lived in the Kaipara district, and for the last three years had been going found the country selling a preparation which he said would kill insects. Hardie was induced to buy some because tho accused told him that, ho had sold £50 worth of the mixture to Mr. Morrison, of Warkworth. Such a thing had never taken place.. Tho mixture the accused sold had been analysed by the Government Analyst, Mr. J. A. Pond. It appeared to have been made in a haphazard sort of way. John Hay Hardie, a fruitgrower residing at Wade, said the accused called at his place with a blight specific, which be guaranteed to kill all blight on fruit trees within three weeks. He also guaranteed it to keep codlin moth off the fruit. Ho said the preparation would last three years. : Reference was made to Mr. Morrison, of Warkworth, a fruitgrower on a very largo scale, and this induced witness to buy five gallons of the specific at £4 per gallon. Witness gave accused a cheque for £10, which represented half the purchase; the other half ilia accused said he would take out in fruit. He received the receipt (produced) and the guarantee on the back was written at witness' 1 request. The accused at the time showed a sample of the mixture, which he wished to sell. He produced a bottle and applied some of the fluid to a tree. This proceeding caused a yellow stain. About an hour afterwards witness was supplied with the preparation in three tins. These tins were emptied into an oil drum which had been about half filled with water. The preparation was to be applied to the stock of the treo with a brush. Witness did this, but it had no effect— "it was just the same as putting water on." It left no stain. At tho time Mr. Morrison's name was mentioned the accused showed him Mr. Morrison's name on tho block of a receipt book. Tho sum of £50 was written underneath. To Mr. Martin : He had been engaged about nine months in the fruitgrowing business, and before that ho was a farmer. He did not believe there was a specific which would keep trees clear for three years. After the preparation Was delivered witness paid the £10. It was the showing of Mr. Morrison's name by the accused which induced him to buy. Be did not know what the oil drum had contained before the fluid, which was yellow, was poured into it'. The sample in. the bottle was red in colour. Witness did not question the accused; he thought it was all right. He was employed haif-an-hour brushing the trees with the mixture, which was placed in a bucket. A yellow sediment formed at. the bottom, and to keep the mixture yellow witness had to stir-it. To Mr. Kettle: He saw no good results whatever from the preparation. No one was present at his interview with the accused. Ernest William Barker said the/accused had told him that he bad sold some of the preparation to Mr. .Morrison and Mr. Shaw, and this. induced him and his father to buy a quantity. The accused volunteered a. guarantee, and it was accepted. He also showed the block of a receipt with. Mr. Morrison's name on it for £50. i The accused further said that Mr. Morrison " was greatly taken with it." Constable Eccles gave evidence as to handing tins of the liquid to the Government Analyst for inspection. J. A. Pond, Government Analyst for Auckland province, said that he had tested the preparation. The sulphur and the arsenic were the only things in the preparation of any use for insecticide purposes, but there was little of each. He estimated the value liberally at 2d per gallon. It was "largely exaggerated " to say it would keep the trees clear for three years. It could have no effect, on the codlin moth, which came to the fruit from the outside. .Edward Morrison, of Warkworth, a fruitgrower and nurseryman, said'the accused had endeavoured to sell him some of the mixtue, and at. tho same time explained its capabilities. Witness told him that what he claimed for it was impossible, and the accused replied, "There is nothing impossible." Witness told him his preparation would be worth millions if what he claimed for it was true. He was told that when applied it would inuoculate the tree and keep away all sorts of blight. He had never paid accused any money, and had never received a receipt from him. ~. ~ .. David Roberts, a fruitgrower and blacksmith, said ho bought £1 worth of the mixture, the accused telling him' it was insecticide and would destroy codlin moth. Accused mentioned Mr. Hardie's name. After looking found his orchard tho accused told him rt would take £8 worth to dress it properly. Witness said he would take £1 worth, and accused brought him a tin containing a gallon. Walter John Parker said he had been in the accused's employ for about three years. He was sometimes with him when he sold these mixtures. They travelled in a trap, and in this the empty tins were kept. They got iodoform from a chemist and yellow ochre from another person. They also got some yellow powder from another chemist. The accused mixed the preparation at a boardiiiKhouse, witness being there at the time. He put some of each substance in— how much he could not say— and then tho water was poured on. To Mr. Martin: He hardly thought liquid or other substances could bo put in without his knowledge. This closed the case for tho prosecution. The accused, who reserved his ! defence, was committed for trial at. the next sittings of the Auckland Supreme Court. Bail was allowed. - ;. '-■ It was intimated that four more charges of a similar nature were pending against, the accused. DISORDERLY IN QUEEN-STREET. John Burke, a respectably-dressed young man, admitted having been guilty of disorderly conduct while drunk in Queen-street. Inspector Gordon said it was not a bad case. The accused had gone into a hotel under the influence of liquor and .when ordered out made a slight disturbance on tho footpath, thereby causing a crowd to collect. Accused was fined £1 and 2s 6d cab hire. , MISCELLANEOUS. . William Francis Gilles,- a married man with three children, pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness. He also admitted having liquor in his possession whilst prohibited. His Worship said that he would havo to imposo a fine, and accused's wife and family would suffer. On the first charge he was fined 20s, or 18 hours' imprisonment, and on the second he was fined £2, or in default, seven days. Accused. was allowed till twelve o'clock next day to pay the fine. Alfred William Kelly, a young man, admitted having entered" tho premises of the Family and Naval Hotel during the currency of a prohibition order. In view of his past His Worship sentenced him to three months' imprisonment. .Arthur Harper, a third offender within six months, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for drunkenness. On a charge of using obscene language in. Pitt-street ho. was sentenced to three- months' imprisonment, the sentences to bo concurrent. A respectably-dressed young man,' and a first, offender, was charged with drunkenness. The accused, who is prohibited, admitted the offence, but said he did not know .whore lie got. the liquor from. He was fined, £1, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Thomas Aitken, a bootblack, who said at present he averaged two pairs of boots per day, but hoped "the good times were coming,"was also fined £1, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment, for a similar offence. Alexander Wilson, a prohibited person, who did not appear, was ordered to forfeit £1 bail, and a first offender, who did not appear, was also ordered to forfeit £1 bail. Another first offender, a young sailor, was fined 5s and 2s 6d cab hire, and another, who had not. been before the Court, for six years, whs fined 10s and 2s 6(1 cab fare.