PROHIBITION IN CLUTHA.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10311, 19 March 1895, Page 7

PROHIBITION IN CLUTHA.

SLY GROG-SELLING PROSECUTIONS,

Ths police having good reason to believe that sly grog-selling was being carried on in the Glutbti difitrict recently visited a number of houseß in the district; with the view of proceeding against those who were found to bo transgressing against the law in regard to the sale of alcoholic liquor. All the houses visited, with cue exception, held liceuscs prior to the vote being taken, which iii the Clutha oijtrict decided in favour of prohibition. The plan adopted by the police with the view of diecoveriug eyaafons of the law was saraewhat (is fol-. lowa:—A few constables in plain clothes who were unknown in the Ciutha were told ofi to visit different parts of the district and oudsavoar 1 o obtain liquor by some means or other. In some cases they mado acquaintance with the resiiSeiit/H, with whom they succeeded ingetting on frieudly terms, with the' result tbat they were invited $'o' have a drink at what was formerly the publichonse. In one part of tho district two constables joined a gang of "unemployed", who were working on a railway putting in the vicinity of a "suopected" house. The men, it appear*, occasionally resorted to the house when day's work was over; and one evening the constables accompanied cue of their number there and obtained liquor. In most of the houses visited liqupr was being sold more or lens openly, and the police had apparently no diffioulty iv obtaining, wh»t they anked for. Hnviog ascertained that the law was being broken thoy next visited the houses armed with search warrants ; and in nearly every case were successful in finding a-.greater'or lesser quantity of alcoholic liquor. Informations, charging those whose houses fhe police had visited with selling liquor without a license, were subsequently laid, and the offenders were in due course brought before a«tipendiary magistrate. The first batch of cases were dealt with at Tapanuion the Bth iusl;. by Mr Hawkins, S.M.,1 before whom four boarding-house, keepers were charged with selling .liquor without a license. Those yfere: WiUhin Simmond*, of Tapauui; Charles Fraser Dunnstt, of KeUo; Thomas Joseph .Collins, of Heriot; and Patrick M'Oaun, of Tapanui. The, three, firstmentioned pleaded guilty, and 'after their •solicitor/ (Mr. ■ Sroolair). hjyd/ /ad,dress.ed ...the court' in mitigation' $ Illiy,^fiejr,,we|rß--■^a^:fli^'£lpiri(J'o|psj^.oif'qo^j;]t^,witns(s|ae«f who had beeu summoned to give evidence ml the cases not claiming »uy "expenses..'; In imposing the" fines • the magißt'ratb s'aict thel defemlaritji would,- of cpursei ,und,B.rsta.tii that' if tfiey came before him jagaiti he should have to act with much more severity and inflict a heavier penalty. . It must be distinctly understood that he should be unable fjo, exercise the same leniency Again.

Iv the case of Patrick M'Cann, who was charged with selling beer and whisky,withont a l^ceuss on January 25, the defendant having pleaded not guilty, eyidepca ; was called by Inspector Pardy (who conducted the case on behalf of the police) in support of the information. The.first witness called was

p»yid .Fleming,' farmer, pf .Cijookstpn, who said that on the date mentioned in the information he went to the defendant's house in conpauy wjtb. two others, and ankpd, for a sbaudygi»ff, bat could, not nay whether he got ■what ha asked for. He did not know that one' of tho men ■whoaqcompanjed him to the house was a detective. '

Constable Broberg; stated that on the 25th of last month, he met; last witneiia in Tapanuiat a street cArn'er, and subsequently went with him' and another man to M'CsinaX After they had been theref a little.while, Fleming asked for shandygaff. Mr M'Cantt poured about two-' thirds of * glass of beer/ from % jug *nd filled up the glasa with, lemonade! [ Fleming a'sk^d witness to have a drink with him, and he called for whisky. Mr M'Cann shook his head gravely and said he did not have any. Then Fleming said/" It is all right,, Pat." M'Cann thereupon poured out a glass of whinky for witness and also one for himself. When Fleming drank his' liquor ho said. " That'is a lot: better beer "than X got down at Siaiinouds's.", '".'""'.',

■■ Defendant,' who was shbsgqaentlyoWledJ'cle-' poised that he'r^membarfld grqbsrg b<}iug «* his tiouse oa the'-"uigtifc pi;1 "thii'2sili u'W. in company* wifch ilomiiig. VVhen they asked for' liquor' he said he had lioihingbiit "soft tick" to give tbsm.y> Fleming teeihed quite pleased, and' said, "Give us anything you like." Witness asked Bioberg what he would have, and he ! replied a little lime, jaicj. Subsequently witness setved Broberg with ginger wine, The next morning Broberg wantnd ft drink, arid complained of his stomach. 'Witness told him' | that; he had no whiaky,, and that he could hsve ,gingur,wmeithe,wauted ji;, , ~.,,-., ; , v .,'i |"" f,,, Cross-examined by Inspector -Pardy,,-witness"' I said that.he coal^ not s*j hpw many.tim^s, he, .n*! i g.o'l liquor up,from .Punedin^.siiace.; he! lost; ,his Haenia,; perhaps ■ flya.- or, six times.-, He would admit having got a little up. He did not know wbat he had done with it. Perhaps he had it yet. There w?s none of-it in the bouse. He did not know where it wa3. He had drunk a lot of it perhaps, and perhaps he hsd I give,D some of.it away to his.friends.. He could I not say whether .there was, any. of it left. Could not say whether the liquor referred to was brandy, .whisky, rum, or gid. '■', | His Worship, ha'viug gone through the various points in th» evidence, said that Broberg's testimony was practically/ corroborated in all ,respsc,ts,except iv the actual point of, the ca?e, as to whether it was whisky or not he was served with. M'Cann1 absolutely denied that he had supplied whisky, and swore that it was nothing but ginger wine. His Worship did not kaowiwhethec that,was fencing with the question, whether. M'Cann in saying ginger wine really, meant whisky. There was this to be considered : M'Caon said that he hud a sort of suspicion about Brnberg, and did not like; serving him. If M'Cann had no whisky in the honso surely there would be no reason for his suspecting Broberg or anybody else. v (X he had whisky about he would have reason to suspect a stranger. If there was no whisky in the house there was no reason why anybody should not go in. . That went rather to show that there was liquor iv the house, and he was very careful to whom he gave it. His Worship said he must also take into consideration that M'C&no had beep buying apirite on, five .or six .occasions., He did not recollect hpw much he had .bought,nor,what he, had clone with.it, and altogether ho had fenced; wijbh the, inspector's questions a ; good deal. Tne,Bench must read .between, the lines of: his which under cross : e;ramraatipu,wasso > unsatisfactory as to tell.against him. He thought that on the whole the case was proved and he must convict j defendant, and ho would be fined the same as i the others.

On the lith inßt. another case of selling liquor without a license was dealt with at Wyn'dham by Mr K»WBon, S.M., the offender being Mr Attwood, of Fortrose. In this) case the defendant's house was visited one day last month by two constables in the guise of swaggers. When they entered the premises they found the bar fitted up like an ordinary bar, and had no difficulty whatever in obtaining liquor, a large quantity of which was subsequently seized. The magistrate, in the first instance, fined the defendant £25, but said he would not forfeit the liquer^ Sergeant Macdonell, who appeared for the prosecution, protested stronitly against the liquor not being forfeited, and pointed out that section 187 of " The Licensing Act 1881" left h>m no option but to forfeit the liquor.,, After some argument on the poiut his Worship reduced the fine to £10, and ordered the liquor, which was valued at £18, to be forfeited.

. Three more cases came before Mr Hawkins, S.M., at BilclutUa on the 13th inst, The first case vat against James Smith Vial, boardinghouse keeper, of Catlins, who was charged with selling beer and whisky without a license on February 10. Mr D. D. Macdonuld appeared foe the defendant and pleaded guilty on his behalf. -

. Evidence.was then called by the police with rsgard to a seizure of liqu'K (a small quantity of which was found on the defendant's pre« raises), with a view to its being confiscated. Mr Macdonald subsequently addressed the court in mitigation of pe.na.Vfcy, and pointed out that persons who formerly held licensed houses were frequently being asked for liquor, and that they gave way to tha entreaties of residents and broke the law. Learned counsel also called evidence in support of his statement.

His Worship deferred dealing with the case until the other charges were considered.

Adam Pafcteraon, boarding-house beeper, of Owata. was then charged with selling beer and whisky without a licence oa February 10.

Ths defendant, who was represented by Mr Matthews, pleaded guilty, . and evidence was given by the police who soarchad the house on February 25 aud found four bottles of gin, three of brandy, eeven small flasks of whisky, and two jars containing whisky. There was also a small barrel with a little beer in it.

William Moir, boarding-housci keeper, of B»l----elutha, was next charged with selling beer and whisky without a license on February 15. Defendant, for whom Mr D. D. Macdonald appeared, pleaded guilty, and evidence was given by Constable Christie, who stated that on searching defendant's house on the 25th ult., he found a barrel of beer, containing 25gal, lgal of whisky, 18 bottles colonial beer, two battles whisky, & bottle and a-half of English beer, the same quantity of stout, and also a bottle and a-half of brandy. He searched the houne again on the Ist of the present month, aud found three bottles of brandy, five of rum, four of whisky, one of gin, 16 of English beeri 15 of colonial stout, one octave of whisky, and a barrel of beer containing absut 36{jal.

Mr Macdonald raised the point that the second seizure had nothing to do with the convictioia, and therefore the liquor in that case could npfc be confiscated.

His Worship said there must bo some limit in the matter. A conviction six months before no doubt could not relate to a seizure now. He had his doubts as to the second eeizura. The se&ond seizure, he tnought, could hardly have relation to tho first, but ho should order confiscation in both 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 Maodonald 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 the liquor, he was told, amounted to £20. His Worship : I inußt balance that by saying that Mpir's case is a worse one than the others. Mr Pardy said that no pressure ha 4 Been brought to bear on defendant to get liquor, and that Moir was not a victim to prohibition, because he took the tenancy after the license of his house h»3 .bean taken away,, ~ . : His Worship'inflicted a penalty of £10 and costs in each cash and ordered the liquor seized toIbe 'confiscated. In doing bo he said the infbrmations brought before him' that day, taken• together.-.with those heard by him at Tapanui, disclosed a widespread illegal sale of liquor exfceuding more or less over the entire electoral district of'Clutba. These offences were unquestionably the direct outcome of a considernote popular resistance to the result of the prohibition vote carried in the electorate. On the wisdom or expediency of'the: law under which prohibition had been laid upon the electorate it was not his business to express au opiuion. As a magistrate it was Ahii duty td: enforce the law as it v stood. It was'with doap'regi'et that he found a widespread and deliberate disobedience of' this particular law, lrno.wiog well that wse imp6ssiblfe fo say to what euch a spirit might extend or howi deeply it might take roat," and, knowing the danger, he appealed to the people of the district to put a resolute self-resfcraiat upon themselves to forego even their legitimate needs unless they could satisfy them without breaking the Uw or iuduciog others to break it. He appealed to those who hail suffered under the law the lots of a great part or the whole of tb.eir property and meansp^ livelihood''Hot to add to the ruin of their estate the loss of their self-respect'tts-'honest and law-abiding men. He wanted that p«t of tho population of the eleotbtUtd who resented the application of the law. Of' pM>h.(Di#pn—»nd he satis^od their.' number was considerable—to grasp the tiuth' that they had but one clear course open to them in the first instance, and that was by all. lawful and constitutional means, to; endeavour to oecufe-'its repeal if they believed it tip' be ■nbjasti"""'-- ■i':" ' ':::''"' J;' ■■'■':■ ■'■.••'.;'>•'■ '" ■' ;■