LIQUOR SEIZED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23381, 24 June 1939, Page 19

LIQUOR SEIZED

[ TITIRANGI HOTEL

CASE AGAINST OWNER

LOSS OF STOCK OPPOSED

COU-RT RESERVES DECISION

Sly-grog allegations were made acnin=r the owner and occupier of the Titirangi Hotel. Leonard James Shrubsail (Mr. Finlay>, in the Police Court, .before Mr. .1. Morling, S.M., yesterday. Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of keeping liquor for sale in a nn-liccnce district on May 27. and to four charges of celling liquor without a licence on .May 1 -i. It, 20 and 27. Senior-Sergeant Cnlwoll said the position in this case was rather unusual The premises were situated in a no-licence area. Police were sent there and had no difficulty in buying liquor on the days mentioned in the charges. Others were seen drinking. Police Seize Liquor The liquor had boon delivered to defendant's addross in Auckland, and it was later taken to Titirangi. said Mr. Calwell. A large quantity of liquor was seized by the. police. Defendant's explanation was that he did a good deal of entertaining, and he had laid in a stock owing to the import restrictions. Sergeant Grainger said a search warrant was executed on May 27. Witness produced a list of the liquor seized, which consisted of 56 bottles of champagne, 26 bottles of whisky, 19 bott-cs of vermouth, 18 bottles of gin. 12 bottles ol sherry, 09 hot tips* of cherry brandy, two bottles of cognac, one bottle of rum, I t bottles of liqueurs, and 2/8 bottles of beer. 'lhere was no one at the premises at the time except de- , fendaut, and he gave every assistance. ''.He was certainly providing for the future," said the magistrate, in perusing the list of the liquor seized. To Mr. Finlay. witness said beer was the only liquor defendant was selling. Series of Misfortunes 1 Mr. Calwell said residents had been ! perturbed about' the apparent amount j of liquor that was being consumed at j hotel.

Mr. Finlav said the case was an unfortunate one; it was the culmination of a scries of mis-fortunes that had attended the place. Unfortunately there had been a demand In the district for beer as a social stimulant. At first defendant used to give it away, added counsel, and then a little unwittingly the custom developed of defendant selling beer. He w;i* led into a practice which was indiscreet and •unlawful. The premises were going to be closed a> a boarding place, and what its ultimate fate would be counsel did know.

Defendant came from Kngland and brought with hirti a large sum of money, said Mr. finlav. In the Dominion he continued to entertain on a large scale. Having in view the imJ>ort regulations, defendant bought a arge stock of sp'irits, which had never been made the subject of sale in an illicit way. At cost price it represented over £'loo to £-00. The police had disked for the forfeiture of-that» liquor. # " Defendant's Cellar "

M Counsel submit ted that that liquor coukl not bo reasonably forfeited. The beer was the subject of sale and that must go. But the rest of the liquor, Jlr. Finlav submitted, should not be forfeited, riiorc was no ground to suggest that this was intended for sale. There was no reasonable justification .for making an excessive penalty by the forfeiture of that liquor. That represented defendant's cellar. ■ '' Defendant, in .evidence, said he was the first mortgagee of the premises. He had always maintained a large private cellar of liquor for entertainment purposes. Tho; hotel had fallen into his hands, and be had tried to make it pay. He had sold only beer. The.largo Quantity of other liquor was on the promises because when defendant left torvn he took the liquor to Titirangi vrith him. The champagne was there for a daughter's twenty-first birthday. To the magistrate, defendant said he was a-man of considerable'means when he came to Xew Zealand, but not todav.

Mr. Col well said the contention by counsel regarding the forfeiture of liquor was very unusual. Mr. Col well submitted that anv liquor found in suuh premises was liable to forfeiture. .The magistrate said there were such circumstances in this case that he ■would reserve his decision. Defendant w as living in an affluent way, and there might be something in his contention.