ALLEGED ILLICIT LIQUOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21022, 10 May 1930, Page 20

ALLEGED ILLICIT LIQUOR.

THE FRANKTON CASE. A FINE OF £2OO. (Special to Daily Times,. INVERCARGILL, May 9. Duncan Mackenzie Boyd, a farmer, of Frankton, pleaded not guilty in the Police Court this morning to a charge of unlawfully aiding, or assisting, in the unlawful distillation of spirits at Frankton. The information, was laid by Mr H. S. Cordery. collector of Customs. Invercargill, Mr E. C. Lewey. S.M., being on the Bench, and Mr A. F. Hogg appeared for the defendant. Figures in the possession of the collector of Customs show that since December, 1924, the amount imposed in fines in eight similar prosecutions was £1772. 10s. There was one case in 1924, one in 1926, two. in 1928, two in 1929, and two in 1930. Mr H. J. Macaiister, who appeared on behalf of the collector of Customs, said that the defendant was the owner of a farm at Frankton in a somewhat isolated spot. The farm was at the foot of the Remarksbles, across a bridge at the other side of the Kawurau fetver, There was no direct access, and to get to the farm it was necessary to go over a number of paddocks. It was a particularly solitary spot. Prom information received the police in January visaed the farm. Constables Neebit and Boyle (Lumsden) and Dunn (Queenstown) comprising the party 'They interviewed the defendant on January 20. and made an exhaustive search. The defendant denied making spirits or assisting to make them. The property consisted of some 400 acres, and was covered with bush and matagouri. It was, therefore,- impossible thoroughly to over the property. No liquor or utensils ■ were found, but in the pigstye were discovered three barrels—two 36’s and one 56—containing a liquid which it was. alleged contained whisky wash. While the police were on the property a man with a sack over his shoulder came into sight, >’hen be saw the police he dodged behind a shed. One of the constables went after him, and the man put' his sack in. the shed and came back with the constable. The man’s name was M’Rae. In the tent where M‘Rae Slept were found UJ sacks of barley and a half four-gallon tin of black treacle. When the defendant' was asked M'Rae’s name he said that it was XTLean. The defendant stated that the barrel contained beer, which he had brewed. Naturally, he was asked why the liquid was kept in the pigstye, and be explained that he kept it there to prevent the children throwing stones in it. That, said counsel, was on the face of it a thin excuse. The pigstye was a considerable distance from the bouse and across a deep gully with a creek at the bottom of it. The defendant said that the barley wae for pigs and fowls. He gave no explanation regarding the treacle. At this stage the defendant interrupted: “ It’s there yet, and you can have it," The magistrate asked Mr Hogg to keep the defendant quiet. , , ‘ (kmtinuing, Mr, Macaiister said that a sample of ,the liquor had been sent to the Dominion analyst, who had stated that it wae whisky wash and not beer. The liquid contained 22 per cent proof spirit.' Subsequently Constable Dunn went to the farm for the purpose of making a sketch, and found that the liquid had disappeared. When asked for an explanation by the constable the defendant refused to say where the wash had gone. Constables Nesbit, Boyle, and Dunn gave evidence along the lines indicated by counsel. I Robert S. Cordery, collector of Customs at Invercargill, produced the Dominion analyst’s certificate.. Witness read the' report of. the Government analyst (Professor M'Laurin), which stated that the amount of proof spirit was 22 per cent, with fermentable substance, calculated as maltose, 6 4 per ynt. The sample con; tained yeast, but no appreciable proportion of bops could be detected. There were several altered barley grains present dn the liquid, and also a few oat hulls. “It is evident from the high proportion of proof spirit and the absence of hops,” concluded the report, “ that the sample is not beer, but whisky wash.” Addressing 'the court, Mr Hogg said that in the no-license districts of Southland and Otago a great deal of home brewing was done. Some people had little or no idea of the.correct procedure, aud the defendant was probably one of these. As regards the preparation, it was not unlawful until the mixture contained proof spirit in excess of a certain percentage. The whole defence depended on the question, what was whisky wash? Counsel submitted that no evidence had been given as to fermentation having taken place at the time the sample had been withdrawn, as was required by the Act, and that therefore, the case for the prosecution was incomplete. Counsel accordingly asked that the case be dismissed. • Mr Macaiister: The analyst’s report speaks tor itself. The magistrate held that as the analyst stated that he considered the liquid to be whisky “ wash,” it was a natural inference that fermentation had taken place, and he would not dismiss the ease. In evidence, the defendant, Duncan M‘Kenzie Boyd, said that the liquor had been used in making home brew. He explained that he had not measured up the ingredients and a little more sugar or barley might, -account for the large percentage of. proof spirit.- He was only experimenting and had not made beer ‘ before. The barrels wer« two IB's;:and a 1 36. The liquid had been all used. The treacle was used for mixing with oats to poison rabbits. ' ■ • ; To Mr Macaiister: He could not tell what the exact recipe was. - He got it out of the Witness. There were hops in the liquid. He used barley, but could not. say how much. He filled the copper and boiled, the mixture, and then filled another copper full. M‘Rae had been on the farm fpr two years off and on rabbiting. ; He told the police the man’s name wae M‘Lcan. Up to that time he had no idea that his name was not M'Lean. | Mi Macaiister: “Yov’.e practically a I rabbit farmer, areh't you?” Defendant: “Certainly not. What right have,you to ask me that?” Mr Macaiister: “You trap rabbits, too?’' Defendant: “How do you know? I both trap and poison.” Counsel went on to question the defendant about the liquid which nad been drunk. Defendant said that he had not had any more friends than usual .visiting him. He had drunk some of the liquid. It bad been • good enough for , him. ’ I Mr Macaiister: “ It would have a pretty fair kick T suppose.” ' I Defendant (pointing to a bottle): “ There’s some there. Try it.” In reply to further questions, the dc- - fondant denied that the wash had been distilled. He had hekrd that M‘Rae was an expert distiller He did nol.know it. The magistrate said that on the evidence he was satisfied that the defendant was miilty. and he would be convieted. Mr Hogg outlined the defendant’s circumstances. which he said were not good and asked for leniency on that account. The defendant had a wife and five children, Remarkinc that the practice of distilling illicit Honor won'd have to be stamped out. the mapist-nte imnoeed a fine of £260. and gave the defendant two months in which to find the money. I