YIELDING TO TEMPTATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13649, 17 January 1908, Page 7

YIELDING TO TEMPTATION.

SLY GROG-SELLING.

MAXIMUM PENALTIES INFLICTED. Before Mr. R. M. Dyer, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday, the partly-heard charges of sly grog-selling against John Sheehan and Bert. Duncan were continued. Sub-Inspector Gordon prosecuted and Mr. Hackett appeared for the defendants.

The case ,of defendant Sheehan was taken first, Constable Clark giving evidence a to having procured a bottle of whisky from defendant for 12s.

Mr. Hackett said there was nothing in the nature of a systematic trade.

The Magistrate : He is not charged with that.

Mr. Hackett said defendant had purchased two bottles of whisky at an hotel, one of which he intended to take to his home. On his way. there he met the constable and another man, who said they were from the King Country and " dying for a drink." Yielding to the temptation, defendant accepted an offer of 300 per cent, more than the liquor was worth.

The charge against Duncan, a fruit and fish vendor, was then proceeded with.

Mr. Hackett denounced the evidence tendered by the constable and the informer at, the previous hearing as not being worthy of credence, on the grounds that the men were sent out to obtain convictions, and were paid according to (he success of the hunt. Counsel also pointed out' certain discrepancies in the evidence given.

Defendant admitted having supplied the constable with liquor, for whicn he received Is, on the Saturday night. Clark and his friend said they were from the King Country and were "dying for a, drink." On the Sunday, the iollowing day, the pair called, and witness shouted" for them. No money was passed on Sunday. The Magistrate : These men have sworn that they paid you. Do you swear that that is untrue? Witness : It is. The Magistrate : Then these men perjured themselves? Witness : Yes. The Magistrate : Some of you are swearing what is absolutely false. Are you prepared to give the lie direct to both Clark and Gillman on your oath'! Witness : Yes. At the conclusion of defendant's testimony Mr. Dyer commented on the fact that, though an adjournment had been granted to allow the defence to call certain witnesses which Mr. Hackett said were material, not a single one had been called. Mr. Hackett said his client was the victim of circumstances. One witness was in the hospital and another was at sea. The magistrate dealt with Duncan first, remarking at the outset that there had been a great conflict of testimony. Defendant had given the other two the lie direct, and either he or they had been saying what was absolutely untrue. It was admitted that Is was received for drinks in the first case, but, as far as the Sunday offences were concerned, defendant said that he had received nothing for the liquor. "I do not think," continued His Worship, "that it is likely that those responsible for your appearance here would deliberately swear what is false to have an innocent man punished, and, further than that, I think your story is most improbable. You had never seen these two men before in your life, and you say you gave liquor to utter strangers for nothing. I do not believe you, and I shall convict you on the three charges." < \ Defendant was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on the first charge and three on the second, the terms to be concurrent. On. his asking to have the third treated as indictable the police withdrew it.

Turning to defendant Sheehan, the Magistrate said : As far as you are concerned you practically admit that there was a sale. Ido not credit your story either. I give you one month— much as the law allows.