Sly Grogger Fined

NZ Truth, Issue 998, 10 January 1925, Page 6

Sly Grogger Fined

PAYING PROPOSITION UPSET.

It appears to have been a paying proposition that was upset when the Auckland police brought a prosecution against Thomas O'Connor for sly grog selling at his boardinghouse m Victoria Street West. He pleaded guilty.

Sergeant Rowell, who prosecuted, produced a case of liquor of varied description as an exhibit m the case. The accused, he said, kept a second or third-rate boarding house, but had. a well-looked-after establishment all the same. He had been selling liquor to the boarders, "and," said the sergeant, as he produced a small bottle of whisky, "this is the sort of thing he has been selling as whisky for 10/- a bottle (holding up a bottle of what seemed like discolored water)." An unknown constable had been sent to the boardinghouse, and, after booking a room, bought some of the drink. Small bottles of beer were sold for 1/6 each, and when a search was made of the premises there were found 14 bottles of Speights, two bottles of whisky (undiluted), and about 4 dozen empties. It was not suggested that the accused had sold liqtfor to all and sundry, but the police reckoned that the sale of liquor was a favor extended' to the boarders. The sergeant said he was sure there were no more than three nips of whisky to the bottle at a cost of 10/-. The defendant had not previously been before the Court for a similar offence, and there was reason to believe that he had been making quite a good living without indulging m that illicit business. He had a very hard working and industrious wife, who x'endered him loyal assistance m running the boardinghouse. O'Connor had said that he would never do that sort of thing again, and there was no reason to doubt his promise. O'Connor stoutly maintained that three men could have consumed all the liquor there was m the place and never been any the worse for it. Sergeant Rowell: They certainly could not have got drunk on that whisky. • . . S.M. Poynton had a look at O'Connor's list and said that he had been before the Court on 19 previous occasions. O'Connor: Since I was married, sir, I have tried to lead a straight life. The S.M,: When were you married? O'Connor: Four years ago. The S.M.: You had three convictions m 1923. This cannot be looked upon lightly. Fined £30 or two months. O'Connor's request to have his name suppressed on account of his wife's people was refused m the light of his previous 19 appearances. As he left the Courtroom, the lodging house keeper' was seen to extract a roll of notes from his pocket, as he inquired where, he could pay the fine. . ,