ALLEGED SLY GROGSELLING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14684, 18 November 1909, Page 4

ALLEGED SLY GROGSELLING

AN UNCORROBORATED STORY. THE CHARGE DISMISSED. Mary Jack was charged before Mr Widdowson, S.M., at the City Police Court yesterday with unlawfully selling beer, not having a license to do so. Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant, who pleaded . Not guilty." Witnesses were ordered out of court. Constable de la Cour said that on Sunday, Octobcr 24, he went to defendant's restaurant in George street- about 10.15 p.m.. '1 here was a man named Samuel Northey with witness. Witness went there for the purpose of trying to obtain liquor and 'having supper. After supper witness asked defendant- if there was any clianco of getting some beer. She said, ''There isn't any in tho place. It is nil at home. Are you going home now?" Witness said ho wa=. 'She said, "If you like to go for a ivalk I will send for some. I haven't got any of Speight's, but I don't suppose it matters much." Witness said it didn't matter what, kind it was. Witness and his friend went, for a walk. On their return they were opposite the shop, and defendant's son came out with a small '.hand-bag and said to witness, ''It's all right. lam just' going homo for it. I won't be long. There are only three inside, and they will soon be out." Witness waited about until defendant's eon returned, and entered tho shop. Witness followed him, and defendant said, " Aro jou all. right?" Witness said " Ses." Sho raid, " I can't be too careful. I don't want to be let in." WiUiecis said, " That'u all right." Northcy was outside. Defendant called her son and said, '' You can bring it up." Defendant's eon appeared holding a bottlo behind his back. Defendant again raid, "I liopc you aro all right," and told her son to givo witiipss the bottle! When witness got the bottlo defendant again asked if he was all right, and witness said, " That's right." Defendant cautioned him not to lot anyono see it Witness replied that ho had a nioo big pocket. Defendant said, " Very well." Witness asked defendant how ntuoh it would be, and sho said 2s. Witness

gave her a florin, and sho said, " Thank you." Witness left tile s'nop. It was then 11.5 p.m. Ine man Northcy was present, when defendant's son spoke to witness, The bottle (produced) was the one which witness purchased. It had not been opened. Witness did not know that it contained beer. I-lis Worship: You must taeto it. Witness drew the . cork and. tasted the liquor, and commenced to laugh. His Worship: What's tho matter? Mr Ilanlon: He liias just discovered that it is not beer. His Worship: What is it? Witness: Stout, Mr Hanlon: It shows you how careful you have to be in tho court. . You can't take anything for granted. Tho Sub-inspector asked that the information be amended. Mr HauUm-. You swore you bought a bottlo of beer. Where is it? Witness: This is the bottle. Mr Hanlon: Then yoti didn't buy beer, Witness, on reading the label, admitted that tho bottle contained stout. Mr Hanlon: You didn't pay particular attention to it. Witness admitted that lie had bought shandygaff in bottles, for his private consumption. Ho didn't know where the Ijottles were, lie had never bought sealed bottlc6 of stout. . This was the bottle which witness purchased from defendant, and which defendant's son handed to witness. Witness said ho took Northcy for company.

Mr Ilanlon: You admit upon your oath that you wero going to keep on at defend-ant-'until you. got',ie.r to break the law.

Witness: That's right. I was noting under instructions. Witness admitted that he had not a single thing to back lip his narrative that- the bottlo of beer, which turned out to be stout,' was sold to him, except that ho showed to Northey outside the shop the neck of a bottle in !nis pocket. On being severely erces-examined witness admitted 'that lie had written his evidence in his notebook, and had learnt it off by heart.

Samuel Northey said he was a' Itibourcr, and lived in-Dtincdin. On' October 24 he met. the previous witness and ; they walked along the strMt-. • The -constablo nsked witness to'como and havo supper, mid I'ney went to defendant's restaurant. Dc h Cour paid for both suppers. After supper they went for a walk, and returned to the corner of Georgo and Hanover streets, opposite defendant's restaurant. They did not meet anyone, but there was a small boy on the corner with a Brown paper parcel. The constable did not speak to him. Witness did not sco the constable speak to anyone whilst in witiims's company, Tho constable went over to tho restaurant and witness remained on tho corner. Wilniss did not know why the constable went back to the restaurant. Do la Cour was in the shop only two or three seconds. While he was in tho shop witness crossed' the road and reached the shop cs tlio const-able eamo out. They walked along together and de la Cour said: "I have got a bottle." Witness suggested' opening the bottle and having a drink, but tho constable said he wanted to keep it. Witness saw what he thought was tho -top of the bottle, in the constable's pocket. Witness did not sse what took placo when the constable re-entered the shop.

Cross-examined: When, tliey left the shop after supper the constable remained behind to pay, but if, was only for a moment—half a moment, in fact. Witness wrs not standing outside the shop window .when tho constable re-entered- the shop. Witness had only reached tho shop when the constable came out. Witness would not swear that the constable had a. bottle of beer or stout when lie came out of- the shop.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr I-lanlon. said tho case was not a satisfactory one for tho court to ba asked' to make a oonviotion on. The only evidence they had was that of tho constable, who admitted.that he had gone there for the purpose of getting the defendant to break the law, which was an offence. His evidence was. totally uncorroborated. Even the witness Northey, a man of acknowledged bad character, refused to go so far as to back the constable Un in some of his statements. Personally, he (Mr Hanlon) had not believed the constable's story that lie had walked as far as the Post Office wlxm they were waiting for the'beer.

The Sub-inspector: He meant the Moray place Pest Office.

Mr Hanlon said he could show that defendant had not kept liquor in her place. Why did the police fail to inform the court that they had raided the shop tuul found nothing. TJie court' had a right to be told, but the poftce suppressed the fact because it was in favour of defendant. That was not the proper way to conduct a case. The Sub-inspector: That was not on the day of the sale.

Mr Hanlon, continuing, said it should have come before the court". He' knew of it, and he brought it before the court. Again, Constable de la Cour had' admitted going to induce defendant to Veil beer, and he would get a reward for tho prosecution— a most iniquitus practice. Defendant would swear that the constable's whole story was a deliberate lie, and there was nothing to show that the constablo did not have the liquor in his pocket before ho went to the shop. Why didn't, a sergeant on the beat search tho constable before he went to the shop? Recalled, Constable de la Cour identified defendant's eon William as tho lad who handed him the bottle.

Mary Jack said she knew Constable de la Cour, who was in her shop nearly every night for supper. On October 24, as the constable and his friend were going out. de la Cour asked for beer, and witness said she hadn't a. drop. They went away, and as far as witness kr«ew neitter of them came back that night. Witness did not tell them to come back, and did not sell them beer. She would swear this positively.

Cross-examined': Witness did not tell the constable she had beer at. home. She had no beer at home. Witness was in the restaurant until 11.30, but did not so« either of the me.n .again after fhev left after, supper. Witness had not been in any trouble of this kind before.

Re-called, witness said a. raid was made on her premises n. week after October 24, but nothing- was found.

William Jack, son of defendant, s»id he as?istrd his mother in the shon. It w.->s not true that witness spoke to the constable on the street-. Witness was never out of tho shop from 8 p.m. until after 12; when ho went. home.

His Worship said the case would be dismissed.