TE KUITI LIQUOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22465, 8 July 1936, Page 14

TE KUITI LIQUOR

SEARCH BY POLICE WHISKY UNDER FLOORING NUMEROUS BOTTLES FOUND TOTAL OF £75 IN FINES [BY TELKCItAPn —OWN CORRESPONDENT] TE KUITI, Tuesday Finos totalling £75 were imposed on John Cornelius Mnllins, proprietor of the Riverside Private Hotel, Te Kuiti, by Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Defendant was fined £SO for selling liquor in a proclaimed area on June 12, and £25 foi keeping liquor for sale on June 15, On a third charge of keeping liquor fyr sale on June 12, the magistrate reserved his decision.

Defendant, who was represented by Mr. Johnson, of Hamilton, pleaded guilty to the charge of selling, but denied the charges of keeping liquor for sale.

Sergeant J. Sparks said that a police agent was sent to the Riverside Hotel to make a purchase of liquor on the evening of June 12. While witness and Constable Muir watched, the agent went in and came out to show witness a bottle of whisky, which he said Mullins had sold him for £l. Witness, the constable, the agent and another man went into the hotel and accosted Mullins, who denied making the sale. Denial of Sale When they told Mullins they had a search warrant, he produced an opened half-bottle of whisky, saying that it was all he had on the premises, the sergeant added The police searched upstairs and downstairs, but found no liquor. On this occasion they did not take up the linoleum in a bedroom. Mr. Johnson contended that the fact that liquor was sold as admitted did not necessarily mean that liquor was kept for sale. He pointed out that no liquor except the bottle freely produced by Mullins was found on this occasion. In respect of the charge of keeping liquor for sale on June 15, Sergeant Sparks said that on that day the police continued the search for liquor in daylight, beginning at 11.30 a.m. Bottles Under Loose Board Nearly three hours later, Constable Muir, after removing the furnishings of a bedroom, including the linoleum, found a loose board, under which were 20 large bottles of whisky, and seven half-bottles of whisky, the sergeant said. A washstand had previously stood over this board. Mr. Johnson admitted that the liquor was in the bedroom on the Friday night for the purpose of sale, but claimed immunity for this admission. Up to the Friday evening it was kept there for the purpose of sale, but after that Mullins was frightened and at the time of the second search it was not there for sale. Mullins was in Hamilton on June 15 trying to make arrangements to dispose of the liquor out of the no-licence area'. The confiscation of £l7 worth of liquor was in itself a heavy penalty. In delivering judgment on two charges Mr. Levien commented that when before the Court some months ago Mullins had been told what was tantamount to "You are not guilty, but you must not do it again." Apparently this was not sufficient warning.