RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 418, 30 August 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (iio'iircAY. l'AKkr.u, Ksq., R.M.) 11KU.NS AN!) I>lS!!i:i>Kl!LT. Patrick Walsh was chare d with having hc r -n drunk and disorderly last night - , and fined os. William Andrews pleaded guilty lo having been drunk and disorderly in Thames-street last night, and with resisting the police in the execution of their duty. The evidence of Sergeant I'eatty having been taken as to the conduct of the accused, the Bench inilicted a. line of '2os., with the option of three days' imprisonment, for being drunk and disorderly ; and L 3, or 14 days' imprisonment, for resisting the police. or.se EX la xorA C; F.. John Porter, alias Francis W. Forder, pleaded guilty to having made use of profane language in Thames-street. The evidence of the arresting constable ha ving been taken as to the nature of the language used, which Avas of a disgusting nature, his Worship ordered accused to pay a line of 405., with the option of 10 days' imprisonment. ILTJi IT j » Ist rlr.at io x. John Chalkcr was charged, on the information of I'ohert Ihoinpson, Inspector of Distilleries and an oiiieer of tin: Customs, with having on his premises at Inchohne, Kakanui, in the County of Waitaki, an unlicensed still and other apparatus and utensils (or distilling, without having the permission of the Commissioner of Customs to have the said still, apparatus, and utensils in his possession for use in his trade, business, or profession, contrary to the form of the Act in that case made and provided, whereby the said John Chalker had forfeited t ! ie sum of L-.00.

Mr. Balnier appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. O'Meauher for the prisoner, who pleaded Nut Guilty. Mr. lialmer having briefly opened tin; case, called liobert Thompson, Sub-Collector of Customs for this district, and Inspector of Distilleries, who deposd : On the 2.">nl inst. I went to the farm occupied l>y the accused, accompanied by Sub-Inspector •Sinit'i and two constables. \\ e saw tnc defendant either ploughing or harrowing close to the hut. Sub-Inspector Smith informed him that, lie had come to see about the still and requested to see it. He took us at once into the house and showed us into a small room oil the main room, having first lighted a slush-lamp to enable us to see, as the room was quite dark. He then pointed to the still, and said " There it is." The article produced is what was pointed out, and is a still. We also found a thermometer, a half-gallon measure, a funnel, some indiarubber tubing, a force-pump, and a barrel. The witness then proceeded to describe the pn mises on which the still, Ac., were found, and the different arrangements of the room.

Mr. O'Meagher objected to this evidence,. as the accused was not charged with having the premises in his possession.

Mr. Balmcr asked liis Worship to accept the evidence, as it was necessary to sh'iw that the articles produced were so placed as to be suited for distilling purposes. Mr. O'Meagher argued that the evidence was not admissable. A description of the premises was merely thrown in as an embellishment.

After some further argument, His Worship said that as the defendant was charged with not only having the articles in his possession, but with ha\ing articles .suited for distillation, and the prosecution had a right to show how the articles were placed, in order to show their suitableness for distilling.

Witness continued : The room in which tie utensils were was about Oft. by 10ft in sizj. The still was placed behind the chimney of the larger room. Underneath the still was a place for the lire, with a flue leading to the main chimney. The still was built in, and close alongside of it was a large barrel, with a hole in the hedge for a pipe to rest upon it. There was .also a force-pump fixed up, an empty keg, and some barrels with beer. At this point an adjournment tock place, in order to allow of Mr. O'Me igher examining several articles mentioned in the information. On the Court resuming, the examination of Mr. Thompson was continued. He said : None of the casks with beer in tliem were full, their contents being about

4n, 25, -nnd 10 gallons respectively. I « have seen 3tills previously, and am able to speak as to the iitness of the articles for distillation. I think the still is a very suitable one for the purpose. 1 have no doubt whatever that it is a still. 1 issue licenses under the Distillation Act, Jyt have not issued one to defendant. Ihe thermometer, funnels, tubing, <\c., aio requisites for distillation purposes. Cross-examined by .MY. O'Meaghor : 1 believe that when Sub-Inspector Smith spoke to defendant, he told him that lie was an Inspector of Police. 1 heard him say that he had come to look at his still, or something to that eil'eet. I had been having a look around the house. Chalker seemed perfectly happy about the matter, and said, "Oh, yes, I will show it to you,' or something like that, when Mr. Smith said he wanted to look at, the still. I know what poleen is, and have tasted it, but not lately. Chalker ottered us some beer. 1 asked him if he had any wlrsky, but he said he had none. 1 have tasted some whisky made in this country, wliicli was very bad. 1 know of no means of telling the diU'cronee between whisky on which duty has been paid and tlui illicit article, except by 1 lie badness of the latter. I should like to have got, a sample of whisky from Chalker. Wo did not tind a worm or any of the whisky. llieie, was no connection between the cask with the hole cut in the chime and the still. (Mr. O'Mcagher here cross-examined witness with regard to the applicability of articles seized for whisky-making.) The witness then said I do not think there is anything extraordinary in a man having a large tpiantiiy of beer on his premises, and it would not be sullicient to lead me to suppose that he was distilling whisky. The whole of the anicle.i were reipiisiUi for distillation purposes. The positions in which they had be n placed lead me to believe that they had been used for distillation. We did not tind any malt or barley on the premises. A worm was indispensable for distillation purposes. We. did not find a worm. Sub-Inspector Smith deposed : On the 2-->rd instant, in company witli Mr. Thomson and two constables, I went, to Chalker's farm, lie was ploughing when wo got there, but lol't the plough, and camo up to us. I asked him if he knew who I was, and be. said, " Yes." 1 then said, •' This is Mr. Thompson, Collector of Customs," and he said, "Oh, I know liim." 1. told him we hud come to see (, ic still which he had, and that, he had belter show it to us, in order to prevent our pulling the place about. He replied l hat lie would very soon do so. This conversation took" place at the end of the house. Wo went round to the front . door and entered the house. .We then went into a room at the lack of tho building, where, we found the still, which was built in with stones at the back oi the chimney of tho front room. (The witness then proceeded to enumerate the ; various articles discovered in the room 1 and the position in which they were found.) I asked Chalker were the worm 1 was, and he at lirst. replied that, he had not got. one, but, ah erwards said that wo would have (o look for it. We searched

for tin; worm, but could not liml it. 1 have seen a good man)' iibcit si ills, and 1 should sav that the article was suitable

for distilling purposes. The whole of the artiehs were suitable for distillation pur-

purposes. Cross-examined by ]\lr. (('Meagher: There were no spiri s of any kind in the. house. We made a good search tor the worm, but did not find it. Chalker told us we would have to look for tlm worm. 1 was not early bird enough to catch (hat worm. I searched round the place foi the worm ; I looked in the water-holes for it, but could not lind it. This wis the case for the prosecution. J lis Worship asked whet.her Mr. ii;111n. r did not intend to call any evidence with a view to proving the defendant's ownership or occupancy of the property on which the still was found. Mr. .Maimer said he did not think it necessary to do so, but if his Worship thought "further evidence was necessary he would have to ask for an adjournment.

Mr. O'Meagher protested against sucli a. course being followed. The case for the prosecution had been closed, and it would not be right to allow it. to be re-' opened. lie went on to say that hit Worship hail, in his opinion, exceeded hit functions in .suggt siing to the prosecution what evidence in rail. It was inauitestlj unfair to t lie prisoner, as, if furt her evidence were allowed to he called, it WotlM give great grounds on which to convict him.

ITis Worship expressed regret if he had said anything which he ought not to have said. i

Mr. Baluier thought that equally as, much injustice 11 ;i< 1 been done to the pro-j sedition" as the defendant, its thu poinj h;'ul been '.stiml to the defence. llcj mentioned precedents for the adoption <1 tlie (tours-.! which liis Worship had taken.! After some further argument, I

His Worship decided to adjourn th< case until 10 a.in. te-niorrow, in order t' all"'>rd him ail opportunity of looking iij authorities on the point. Bail was allowed. VAHKAVY. John Madden was charged by the polici with having no lawful visible means o support. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Michael Donovan, the arresting con stable, stated thac he had known th( accused for about IS months, and hac never known him to do any work. II( was generally ii the company of notec gamblers and s«spected thieves. Of lat( he had been living with a jii. named Lizzie Anderson. J:le formerly resided for .'ome time at the boarding house of Mr Craig, who was now in gao for robbing > man in liis bjarding-liouse

Madden lad be. n previously charged | with robbing a man named Brown at i Craig ? s, and :i man named Lhl at Lizzie j Anderson's house. _ i

The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length. The case was remanded until to-nior-row. another cask. Frank White was also charged v.-iui having no lawful visible means of support. The prisoner was also leinanded until to-morrow.