SLY-GROG CASES AT MILTON.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10636, 30 October 1896, Page 4

SLY-GROG CASES AT MILTON.

The Milton Court was crowded yesterday, when William Anderson, storekeeper, of Clarkesville, was charged before Mr fi. S. Hawkinß, S.M., with Belling spirituous liquor (whisky) without a license on tbe 13th inst.

Mr Donaid Reid appeared on behalf of the police to prosecute, and Mr A. C. Hanlon to Mr Reid, in Iris opening remarks, stated that the defendant was a storekeeper at Clarkesville, and oe the niffht of the 13fc, »b0ut7.30 o'clock, four nieu went iuto the store aud askad for gioger ale, and then went into t'ae back room, where a bottls of whisky was produced by the defendant. They sat down and drank that, after which two more botta were produced, and the greater partol thai: consumed. They remained there till about 10.30 p.m., when they departed, and two of them at »ny rate were so much under the influence of liquor that they fell outside the shop.1 Counsel aaSfid ths magistrate to tako into consideration in fains the penalty the fact that there was no excuse for these men such as there would bo perhaps tor a man in a prohibition district, because here liquor could be got at licensed houses within . a few minutes' walk. Further, the publican nad no^ pttly to pay aliwnsefee, but had to submit to the provisions of the Licensing Act. -Coomb] then said he would procsi=d to call the foul men who were in defendant's house. , • ' ' IJojus Scott gave evidence th»t he went to tha defendant's house abotit haif-past 7 on the evening of Tuesday, the 13th. Hamilton, Cameron, .mfl Soeddon were there. He left ab0ut,9.30. Dur;n,s the time he was there the* had several drinks of whisky. Aoderson supplied it, but no one ordered it that hs heard. It might have been ordered without his hearing it. He did not i "shout." He did not purchase anything at the ! store that night. He had a running account there • for "\iodt. He dealt there. I^obody paid for ■whisKy that he saw. He did net order any arrnk Flouert Kneddon said he went to defendant's stoiv- about balf-p&st 7 and remained till 10.30. Scott left at 9.30. Thay had drinks there- . six or soven drinks of whisky each, facott only had two or three. NoLodv paid that he ssw. He " shouted " three tinus. There were tbree bottles containing whisky brought in. They were not all full. He told the others that he would shouc for them. They were iv the telephone bureau room. A»4«?rson brought in the drink, lsauultin c»l><s for two rounds of drinks, and Cameron lot the tbird round. They kspt this order. He paid no money, and did not r )O e anyone else pay. He received a bill from the defendant about last Friday, the 23rd. The account was put in. It contMned; inter alia, an item, apparently under date Staid October, I '■ To goods, 53 Od." , ~."•! Mr Haulon objected to this account being put in evidence on the ground that the trariwwtiOD with resard to this fis 6d worth of goods appeared to have' taken place on the 23rd of Octob-sr-lC daw subsequent to the alleged offence. No evidence could therefore, he said, be given to explain that particular transition, as it was not relevant. Affor argument, Mr Hawkins ruled that ha would only allow the witness to be asked if hs purchased any soo<3s whatever on the 23rd. Witness (continuing) said that before _he received this account he had a conversation with the defendant about the drinks. Defendant said he had put it down 85 " goods. He shouted three times. First for f<mr, which would be 2s; next for four, which would be 2s • and lastly foi three, which would be Is fid-or 5s 6d in all. He was sober when he left. Cimeron and Hamilton were not sober. _ Witness w»s cross-examined at length. Wifr'am Cameron save evidence as to havmj been at defendant's store oa the nightof the 13th. He had seven, eight, or niae drinks. Perhaps one I«3S or one more. Witness paid half a crown for the first round and got 6d back;, 2s_ the next time for titree drinks and a packet of cigarettes. He was quite positive he paid these two amounts. He did not suppose they were cober. They were Kobar when they want there. There were two bottles with a little in each and one full one brought in. Thh witness was also cross-examined at length, particujurly as to what information ha gave tfl the police. ~ ~ .. Mr Reid was about to call another witness, Mr Hsaloa said ha thought it would 'be futila for him to endeavour to hava the defendant acquitted in the fscs of that evidence, and he would therefore withdraw the plea of not guilty and submit the dofcndnut to the clemency of the court Counsel woold like to point out in mitigation that the defendant was a young man, not being quite 21 y<ws of age- who had been nUced in this business by his uncle, and -who probably had been tempted by others who were older thaa himself, and who ought to have known better, to keep a hot-tie of whisky on the premwes. This was no doubt dona by him, and these people catiio tbern in the evening, when they apparently had nothing batter to do than get drunk. No doubt the prosecution would be a lesson to the yonas man, and if his worship inflicted a comparatively light penalty it would be sufficient to mjwt thn case. . ■ His Worship agreed with Mr Hanlon that the evideucs was very strong, and although ne did not check the case while proceeding, he thought the defendant was wise in withdrawing his defence. He did not place vary groat weight upon thts fact that this laau was selling in opposition to the publicans, but still the latter wens usdor the act, end were liable to various penalties for breaches of it, and they of course had to pay their license fee, and it was unfair that a mau should sell in the way that this mau had done. One of the very evils which arose out of sly grog-ssllins was exemplified in this case. Here the dafsndaut kept a shop, in tha back room of which these people met m the -vraiag and quietly draak there withont feax of interruption by the police. A private house could aot be entered by the police the same as a pnMtciiouxe, and the people in conseqaence Eit there is> seclusion without any feat of being detected. He would take into consideration the circumstances Mr Hanlon mentioned, but would inflict a fairly substantial penalty—viz., £30, and COfctS (tls). Fourteen days were allowed within which to pay the fine. .