BEER ON SUNDAY

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12483, 26 June 1926, Page 5

BEER ON SUNDAY

A CONSTABLE’S PURCHASE DEFENDANT DENIES SALE £2O FINE IMPOSED The story of how a constable in plain clothes purchased three bottles of beer on a recent Sunday morning from a house in Alma Lane was unfolded in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Thomas Atkinson appeared to answer two chargee of the illicit sale of liquor. Atkinson denied the charges. Constable Johnson gave evidence that he visited the defendant’s house on May 23rd in plain clothes, and was supplied by Atkinson with three bottles of beer, costing 2s 6d each. He had no trouble whatever in obtaining the liquor. On June 6tli he again went to Atkinson’s and bought a bottle of beer for 2s 6d. He was accompanied by a friend on one occasion. Mr A. B. Sievwright (for Atkinson): “You were accompanied by. a friend on one occasion. Is he going to give evidence?”—“No, he is not.” “So that your evidence of the purchase of the liquor is not supported?” —“I have the liquor here.” “Will you answer my question?”— “Yes, my evidence is unsupported, except that I had no liquor when I went to Atkinson’s, and when I came away I had a bottle with me.” “Do you realise that Atkinson will say no liquor was said to you?”—“He can’t deny he sold the beer to me.” “Well, he will deny it. It is a question of your evidence against his?”—“Yes.” “FOR HIS OWN CONSUMPTION” Constable Harvey stated that as the result of the execution of a search Warrant on Atkinson’s house, twelve and a half battles of beer had been found, and a number of empty bottles. Mr Sievwright: “The defence is that no liquor was sold by Atkinson to Johpsop, It seem, to be a. matter (or.

serious comment that there is an allefation that another person could be rought to court to give evidence of tho purchase of liquor, and he is not here. There should be no doubt in the mind of the court that justice is being done: The amount of liquor found in Atkinson’s house shows quite conclusively that he lias not been dealing in ‘sly grog,' but has merely had it there for his own use. The amount is not greater than could he found in many other Wellington homes.” Atkinson, from the box, admitted having been convicted and fined in December last for selling “sly grog.” Johnson had never purchased any liquor from him, and the beer in his house was simply for his own consump. tion. Mr E. Page, S.M.: “I think I must convict this defendant. I propose to accept the story of the constable as to the purchase of the liquor. On the first charge the defendant will be fined £2O, and an the second charge he will be afld diaohaiacd.’t .<