TASTE AND GO

NZ Truth, Issue 1001, 31 January 1925, Page 6

TASTE AND GO

Hot Lips Pressed To A Keg

Wharfies' "Schoolboy Escapade."

The .liveliest interest was taken m a prosecution by the Auckland police the other day of five well-known waterside workers for the alleged theft of a quantity of wine from the wharf. A touch of irony was. lent "the affair by the fact that two of. the accused are avowed total abstainers, one having taken the platform as a champion of the "drys" at election time. The accused were Henry T. Sainsbury, John Burlfcigh, Victor Nugent, John A. F. Horspool (Lawyer Moody), and George Wynne (Lawyer Sullivan), each of whom pleaded not guilty to stealing one gallon of wine the property of the N.Z. Shipping Co. Chief Detective Cummings prosecuted, and Magistrate Poynton was on deck, with two J.P.s to aid him m the dispensation. .

The principal witness was Detective McHugh, who said he and Chief Patrolman Ryan of the Harbor Board, watching from a peep-hole m the floor of an upper storey shed, saw Horspool come along, take a furtive glance around, and then "duck" behind a cask. A minute or two later he re-appeared and leaving the shed returned with Prohibitionist Nugent. Horspool then disappeared behind the cask again, while Nugent watched. Then the order was reversed and Nugent disappeared. This was repeated several times as far as these two and Burleigh who came on the scene later were concerned. Wynne was only seen once at the barrel and Sainsbury twice. Witness said he did not see any one of the accused actually drinking from the cask, but he was convinced from their actions and demeanor that they were "tasting." This story was corroborated by Chief Patrolman Ryan who stated m crossexamination that there would be about thirty men working m the : vicinity of thf>. keg on the night m question. Sergeant Flannagan related that accused being brought to the wharf police station, he said to Burleigh: "You are a fool to get mixed up •m this. Could you not have bought enough beer for eighteenpence?" To this Burleigh replied: "Well, somebody asked, me what was m it and I took a suck to see what it was." Mr. Moody addressing- the Court referred to the previous good character of the accused. None of them was a dvir.ker and two were staunch teetotalers. • No evidence had been led to show that the men had been seen to take the wine. They had only been seen to go behind a cask and assume a kneeling position. The S.M.: You do not suggest they were praying? (Laughter.) Counsel, continuing, said Nugent was, a sorter and it was his duty to report any leakages or damage to the watchman, who was Burleigh. Burleigh, on the other hand, wa's> bound, to report the matter to his superior who was the first witness. Nugent had found this cask leaking and ;he reported it to Burleigh who went. to find his superior but he was engaged at the. time. The other accused whom he represented would deny that they had been near ths cask and counsel submitted that there must have been an honest mistake on the part of the police witnesses m their identification. CLUTCHING AT A STRAW. In conclusion, counsel commented on the fact that there, had been no evidence of consumption of the wine, v not even of the presence of a straw to connect. the throats of the accused with tho precious draught. Each of the defendants was called m turn and gave evidence along the lines of counsel's : statement. . Under cross-examination by the Chief Detective, Nugent said there was a bale of straw against the keg, but he did not see any straws on the top of the cask. Burleigh said he had not scon his superior to report the matter up till an hour after the occurrence, when he. was arrested. Lawyer Fawcett, who at one time was a gauger, said it was impossible to tell the contents of a keg of wine or spirit by weighing it. There was too much dependent upon absorption and evaporation and too much variety m the thicknes " of the staves of the barrel. Mr. Sullivan, m his address, emphasised the fact that the Crown must prove its case beyond a 'shadow of a 1 doubt and contended that it had fallen far short of that. He also stressed the far-reaching effects of a conviction against a watersider. Not only did it mean that he would have to meet any penalty imposed by law, but a conviction for an offence such as that meant that he would be denied the means of livelihood so far as the wharf was concerned for the space of, six months. So far as Wynne was concerned he had never been near the place where the