PROHIBITION IN CLUTHA.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10307, 14 March 1895, Page 4

PROHIBITION IN CLUTHA.

MORE SLY GROG-SItLLING CASES. Three more cases of sly grog-selling in the Clutha licensing district were dealt with yesterday by Mr Hawkins, S.M., at the courthouse, Balclutha. JAJiEs smith vial's case. The first case called on was that against James Smith Vial, boarding-hnu.e keeper, of Catling, who . was charged with selling beer and whisky without a license on I-ohvuary 10. Mr D. D. Mandonuld appeared for the defendant, and pleaded guilty ou hia behalf. Inspector Pardy stated that there was a Bmall seizure of liquor, and it would be necessary for him to prove that fact with the view of Its being confiscated. He called O'.i.-tuble Laic, who stated that he searched defendant's house on February JJS, and found one boitl-i full of whisky and another bottle half full. The liquor wus in what Mr.. Vial explained was her daughter's bedroom. « Mr Hawkins: The order will be that the liquor is cnnli c.-le.t. Mr Who ousld submitted thatthe liquor thould not be forfeited. Mr Hawkins : Why uot i Mr -Macdonald a_.id the offence mentioned in fhe .information was on February 10. and the place «'», searched on February £5. Tbat being the case be w.til.i call his Worship's attention to sections l?'l to IP-7 nf the act. The first section authorised the magistrate to issue a warrant. Section 187 said : "lv the event of the owner or occupier of any premises beiug convicted of selling or exposing or keepiij..; for sale any liquor which he is not authorised to sell, the liquor io seized and the yen. els containing such liquor' shall be forfeited." What he wished to urge was this: j tbat the liquor was found in the daughter'^ bed- j room. Suiely the police did not im.au to say ! that that was an exposure for sale Theu v 1-ottln I and a-half of whisky was pot a very exorbitant ) amouut to have in the house. lie had known ,- prohibitionists to have even a couplo of bottles of liquor in their house. But even assuming a I sale was made on Fctiniary 10, there was nothing to show that this particular bottle and a-balf wa. implicated in that sale. The liquor might have been brought to thu house the clay before it was found. S.ime prohibitionist might have visited tbo district and left it there. Mr Pardy : The act gives us a month in which to execute the warrant. - ] Mr M.cdunald said although tho police had a ' mouth iv which to execute tbe warrant only a bottle aud a-half of liquor wa. obtained. That made the defendant's case better. Mr Pardy : I shall prove that he had a larger quantity there, if my friend Mr Macdonald wishes it. Mr Hawkins observed that section 172 seemed to imply that when there was more liquor na the premises than was reasonably required for the use : of persons maiding there, the fact made it prima, facie evidenco that it was there for unlawful sal--. Jlr Macdonald said that rather sustained his contention. Mr Hawkins said he thought it did. He could not say that there was reasonable grounds for supposing that a bottle and a-half of liquor was kept .for sale unless he had other evidence. Mr Pardy. pointed out that under section .187 of lli-* act, in case of a conviction being obtained, the i liqunr must be forfeited. Ho referred his Wor-hip to Judge.Broad's "Law of _Yew Zealand Innkeepers," in which it was Btated that if the liquor ■ was/nor. forfeited the conviction was of no avail, and could be quashed. . His Worship remarked that that could not be good law. He proceeded to say that the whole of the act was like many other acts — vai-f ambiguously framed. According to it the liquor J might be seized at any time. If once a nuo was convicted and liquor was found upon his'premises it might be confiscated. Mr Macdonald said that was so if there was an, exposure or sale.

His Worship thought there must bs forfeiture It was sufficiently closely connected to make forfeiture fellow conviction. He could not tay in all case- where sale and seizure were six months apart that it would then follow ; but he thought ih this ca. c it did.

Mr Macdonald then said he would like to address lhe bench on the general question. He would urge in mitigation of penalty that Mr Vial, like a great many people in the district, bad a hotel license, of which ho was deprived some threo or four years ago, and although he had been KO years in the business there had never been a word of complaint against him. He had always been looked upon as a very respectable person, and never had any trouble of this sort before. In addition-to that he (learned counsel) would urge tbis point: That although prohibition had been carried in the district, a very considerable proportion of tbe community felt a great deal of dissatisfaction'about the existing state of affairs., He admitted that the law must \/e respected and' . maintained, but there was no doubt whatever Jot the dissatisfaction that he had referred to. '. Agr.!&t many people who were respectable and decent citizens had been in the habit of getting liquor, and since this law came into operation they had been deprived of that privilege. The consequence was that t*.ese people implored those who formerly kept hotels to give them drink, and the owner., of the premises gave way to their entreaties. A great many of these people who grit drink t .ndered payment for it and wanted to pay for it. but unfortunately the law did not allow them to do it. Theowner_of tho houses were being continually implored for liquor, and it required great strength of will to resist that temptation. He would call evidence to show that this was so, and that ought to go a long way in mitigation of penalty. Mr Pardy : Then it will be necessary for me to show that there wss no solicitation in this case ; that.the liquor was eiveu freely. His Wi.r.liip said he thought he had belter hear what conld be said on both sides. Mr Pardy had better call his endence and let the court know What wr.s really going on. C'barle" Ringley Ki_>j.,-apecs'al constable S'ationed at DiHiedia, .-.'.tid that he visited defondadt'g house on Sunday, tht.-3rd inst., and had dinner thereJ Ou Saturday, the Oth. he visited the house in company with M'Cluskey, a man working on a cutting in .lho neighbourhood, and-th».y had a glass of whisky, which M'Cluskey paid for. Taey, subsequsntly had two more ghi'ses of whisky, which witness paid for. He visited the house again on the 11th with Special Constable Hay. He asked Mrs Vial for whisky-.-md his mate asked for a glass of beer. Witness also desired Mrs Vial to fill a flask with whisky, and she said it would do after tea. The drinks were brought iv and Hay paid for-them. Witness subsequently went into the kitchen, where he saw Mr Vial, whom he invited to have a nip. Mr Vial said }ie would take a little ginger wine, and witness said be would have whisky. Although Mrs Vial did say, "You, mean ginger wine." She brought him in whisky, with the remark "Here's your ginger wins." Witness paid for fhe drinks. After tea Mrs Vial filled him a fl«k of whisky, for which he paid 2s. He and his mate then left. (Witness produced the fiisk which he said he had purc-ascd.. In cross-examination witness said he came from Wellington about a month ago. He did not know that M'Cluskey was a friend of Vial's.

Mr Macdonald ? Was your object in going with M'Cluskey to Vial's to use him as a decoy ?

Witness rdplie i that he would just as scon have taken any of the other men working on the cutting. M'Clr.skey appeared to be the only one willing to m for a wall, that uight He did not say fo Mrs Viai that the flask of whisky was for a sick mate whose feet were sore.

} In reply to Mr Pardy, witness said that all of the men working on the cutting knew the Vials. The men were working very hard there. Mr Macdonald then asked to be allowed to call evideuce in mitigation of'penalty. His Worship said it was rather an unusual course, but he win not disinclined to hear what was said, because he was desirous of knowin-? what was goiug on in the district. •'■-' JDr John Gibsun Smith, who.had. resided in the district for about J.O years, said that no hotels in Catlins river was a very great want. He hud been,at Mrs Vial's, frequently, when she had been asked for-liquor, and.he had no doubt that she Would be often importuned for it. . To Mr Pardy: Witness had received a glass of liquo- many a timo from Mra Vial. He was not sure whether he had paid for it or not. He might have paid for it. Mr Hawkins : There is no offence in paying for it. Mr Pivrdy : I only want to show that liquor waa being sold. Mr Hawkins repeated that there was no offence in, paying for the liquor, and therefore the witness must auswer the question directly. Mr I'ardy (to witness): J_»ld you ever pay for it? Witness': Yes ; ( have paid for it. Jlr Pardy : Aud have you seen others supplied With liquor? Witness : I have seen them. In reply to further questions witness stated tbat he had great difficulty in getting liquor. He had been at Mrs Vial's when she had none in the ■place, aDd at other times he bad beeu there and got liquor. lis bad repeatedly heard her entreated for liquor. George Thomson, timber merchant of Balclutha, who bad resided 25 years in the district, said that he. believed a. large proportion of the community would take liquor if they could get it, and felt dissatisfied at not b«ng able to get it. He waa sure that keepers of accommodation houses were frequently entreated for liquor. He was.notprej pared tn say that they would give it away for uoihiug, but ho had often had a glass of y-kisky at j different accommodation houses without payiDg I for it.

To Mr Pardv: Witness had entreated for liquor ! himself at \ .al's. Sometimes he had been supplied and sometimes refused. Mr Vial never had i a license in the premises he was iv now. He bore I a reputation beyond reproach, and kept a very j respt ctaHe house. Donald Keid, solicitor, of Milton, who had travelled in the district for the last 21 years, said it was a great inconvenience to the travelling I public to have the hotels shut up. The owners lot accommodation houses were frequently en--1 treated for liquor. He had even entreated Mrs ! Vial himself. On ono occasion when he stopped at her house he.called her a fool for not keeping something for her friends. Oa the same occasion he went to Mr Patterson's, and Mr Patterson had to send to Balclutha to get some liquor at witness's request, as he could not get any iv the plac?. He never went back tbere any more. To Mr Pardy: That was previous to the last vote, about two years ago. Mr Hawkins: 1 think we understand pretty well, from these witnesses what sort of pressure is nut on these people. Mr Macdonald suid he had two more witnesses to call, but his Worship indicated that he thought it would be unnecessary to call any further evidence. The charge against Mrs Vial wa. withdrawn.! ADAM PATTERSON'S CASS. Adam Patterson, boarding-house keeper, of Owaka, was theu charged with selling beer and whisky without a license on February 10. Mr Matthews, appearing for defendant, said he would admit that the wife supplied the liquor. The husband had nothing to do with it. Mr Pardy : But he in the occupier. It was agreed to accept the plea of guilty as regarded Patterson, and to withdraw the information agaiust Blrs Patterson. Constable Griffiths, of Mosgiel, said that he searched the house on the 25th February last, and found four bottles of giu, three of brandy, seven small flasks of whi.ky, and two jars containing whisky. One of the jars was about seven gallons, ! the other about five. They were not full, but j there was whisky in them. One was about half full, the other a little less. There was also a small I barrel, he thought about 2Sgal, with a very little | beer in it.

Mr Matthews: My client says the quantities are exaggerated, but I'll let that go. The inspector admits it was not measured by the ! police. ] Mr Pardy said that wags.. ' ; Mr Matthews said the defendant had resided for 21 years in the Catlins district. He was a man of irreproachable character, and no complaint had ever b.eu nude against him by the police uutil prohibition, like a destructive cyclone, entered, tbe district and nealt a tenihl. blow at liberty. Ho had conducted his. hotel in an exemplary way, and bad lout his license through prohibition. Immensepressure had besn brought to boar upon these ex-hotel-teepors. Mr Pardy :« Tbe police used no pressure whatever. WII.UA._"MOI!I'S cask. William Moir, boarding-house keeper, of Balclutha, was next charged with selling beer and whLky without a license on February 15. Mr Macdonald pleaded guilty on behalf of the defendant, nn the understanding that a second charge pending against Mrs Moir was withdrawn. Constable Christie gave evidence as tn searching the house on tbe 25th February. He found a barrel of beer, containing _J,s;_:il, Igal of whisky, I.S bottles colonial beer, two bottles of whisky, a bottle and a-balf of English beer, the same quantity of stout, and also' a bottle and a-half of brandy. He searched the house again on the Ist of the present month, and found three bottlea of brandy, (iv* of rum, four of whi-ky, one of ffin, JO of English beer, 15 of colonial stout, one oetavu of whisky, and a barrel of beer containing abopt Jili»alJ To Mr Macdonald: A good, many people are about the house rm salo days. Mr Macdonald uKcd tho same point with regard to forfeiture as be did in the other case. I'his cose was even clearer in regard to the point pientioped than the first case was, because although thetir.t of the seizures spriken of might bave had something io do with the conviction it was plaip, even on tbe testimony before the court, that the othi-r .itntf was ukcp inn the place afterwards. There was no eyidcice that there bud been aDy sale from this stuff. It »-»< not unusual for'pereous tok'tep a small quantity iii stock and give people a gla*s of beer with.iheir dinner, and there was nothing to prevent that being done, but his main point win this, tkat there was no concu-enntio*-— nothing between the seizure and the conviction ,'J His WoJiihip said there must be sotui: limit. A conviction six month-, before no doubt could not relate to a seizurn now. He had his doubts as to the* second seizure. The second seizure, he thought, could hardly have r»lation to the first, but he should .order confiscation: in bofh cases, and leave Mr Macdonald to appeal, taking a note of his objection. Mr .'Macdonald'supposed the police would not proceed to sell until he had time to test the matter. Mr Pardy: I will not sell if Mr Macdonald is going to appeal. Mr. Macdonald urged that in fixing the penalty some leniency should be shown on account of the large confiscation. The value of thp' liquor, ho .was told, amounted to £20. Hi* Worship': I must balance that by saying that Moir's case js a worse one than the others. iMr I'at-dy said oo pressure had been brought to bear, and that Moir was not a victim to prohibition, because he took the tenancy-after the license of his.bo.is'e had been taken away, Hi 3 Worship inflicted a penalty 0f,.£10 in each rme, and ordered the liquor seized to be con fiscated. He added : The informations brought before me, taken- together .with those, beard by me at Tapanui, discloJse a widespread illegal Sale of liquor expending more or less over the entire electoral district of Clutha. These offences are unquestionably the direct outcome of a considerable popular resistance to the result of the prohibition vote carried in this electorate. It is clear that those who have pleaded guilty, or been convicted, havefoundalatge demand for liquor, which they.at certain risks to themselves and in view ofdoubtless a corresponding profit, have undertaken to supply. On the wisdom or expediency, of the law under which prohibition has been laid upon the elcc- ' tot ate it is not mv business to express any opinion. As magistrate it is my duty to enforce the law as it stands. Tn me* the fact that it is the law outweighs, all oilier considerations.. But my duty as stipendiary magistrate is not confined to a mere isolated hearing and decision, of every individual civil or penal case that conies before me. It im- ' poses on rae ;a much wider ahd far-reaching obligation ; it lVthat of maintaining among all classes of the people,of tho district in which I exercise my jurisdiction a spirit of cheerful obedience to the jaws, of complete confidence in the administration1 of justice, and a cordial respect for. the office of magistrate. It is then with deepregret that I find a widespread and deliberate disobedience of this particular law.' Knowing well that it is impossible .to, say to what mch .a spirit may-extend or bow deeply it may take root, aud btiowidg the danger, and having, I trust, the confidence of the people of this district, I appeal to them to put a resflute, felf-restraint upon themselves to forego t%ir dtvcti lejrit.iniate needs unless they can satisfy th'ein\*ivitKbiit breaking the law or inducing others to break it. And I appeal to those who have suffered under this law the loss of a great .part or the whole of .their property and means of 'livelihood not-.to- add 'to the ruin of their estate the loss of their selfrespect as honest -anil law-abiding men. I want that part of the population of this electorate who resent the application of the law .of prohibition— and 'I aiii'satisfied their number is considerable— to, grasp .'the truth that, they have but one clear course open to theni, in lhe first instance, and that is by ! all lawful and constitutional means to endeavour to secure Jits repeal if theyhelieve it to be.uujust. They aie grievously mistaken if they think they can vindicate the assertion of their individual or.public rights and liberty by breaking, or inducing other.? to break, the restrictive law., while they are too Btinine, too idle or indifferent.to use, all those lawful mt-an.. of effective organisation, of public meeting, of thp active and intelligent use of .their electoral rights, and of constitutional appeal to Parliament, which arc. the proper methods in the .first ' Instance ip this democratic -State; of. endeavouring to obtain the. repeal or mnd_fic--tion of any obnoxious bvw. I appeal especially to.the * people, as apart fToni the vendors of liquor, because it is the. demand of the people .which is the support, if not the, creatiou, ef the illegal supply, and there can be. no falser notion tlut it is a nu-stidn; between the vendors _ and the people. It is a question between two opinions among the people themp'elvvs: the opinion on*- one hapd : that the drihkirvgof any liquid containing alcohol, whether cider, table beer, ale, wine, or any kind :of '"spirits," is attended with results so injurious to man that the State, at all risks, is justified, on the vote of a majority at a given poll, in absolutely prohibiting its sale for consumption, by. auy person;, whatever; the opinion on .the other hand thatthe injury only exists in. excess and adulteration, that both should.be effectually dealt with by measures of regulation and control, and that total prohibition, even on the vote of a , majority, is entirely "in justifiable as well asiuex* , pedient. This is a completely free Community. The decision between the two opinions lies in the hands of the people: and, therefore, again I appeal to you frankly' to abide by this law so loDg as. ;it is law at whatever inconvenience to yourselves. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that the Government will, through tho police executive, take every means to bring offenders hefore the courts of justice. For my own part, I have in-there'first batches of prosecutions imposed fines which I consider light. I have made allowance for, a | general haz'u-e.s -which I am. sure exists in the public mind on the subject of tbese offences—the idi-a that they may break the law because they think' it unreasonable, and that a trial of wits between therii and the officers of justice is a fair one; but haviug now put before you what is, I think, a clear statement of the posit. od, I give warning that in future I shall impose Jan exemplary fine on anyone convyited by me of this particular offence.