LICENSING ACT BREACHES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22066, 23 September 1933, Page 9

LICENSING ACT BREACHES

PROSECUTIONS AT MILTON SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES IMPOSED. (Special to Daily Times.) MILTON, September 22. At the monthly sitting of Milton Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., charges were preferred against three local residents —and the wives of two of the defendants—of breaches of the Licensing Act, in selling liquor, keeping for sale, or manufacturing wine.

The case for the prosecution was conducted by Senior Sergeant Mac Lean (Dunedin), and pleas of guilty were entered in each instance.

Senior Sergeant Mac Lean stated that the charges were laid after lengthy investigations of this class of offence. Evidence which could have been brought forward if the defendants had not pleaded guilty would have proved conclusively that there was extensive trading in “ sly-grog" in Milton. Other more serious aspects in connection with the present charges were that the liquor had been chiefly sold to young persons under the age of 21 years and also that the defendants had no idea of the strength of their liquor. This had reached up to 18 per cent, proof spirit, which had a disastrous effect on the health and minds of the young people. Some of the beer which had been analysed contained up to about double the strength of the beer sold in licensed hotels over the bar. The first case heard was against Ernest Marshall, who was charged with keeping liquor for sale on June 9 at Milton, within the no-license district of Clutha, and with manufacturing wine for sale at Milton on July 1 without authority. Ellen Jane Marshall, wife of the defendant, was charged with selling liquor (wine and beer) on July 1. .A medical certificate was produced showing the defendant’s inability to attend. In the case it was stated that Mrs Marshall had sold three bottles of home brew and a bottle of wine to a constable in plain clothes and others in his comPa Mr D. Sumpter, for the defendant, asked for leniency. The male defendant was a relief worker, and had been tempted to supplement his small earnings by sellins home brew and wine. • Marshall was fined £ls and court costs (10s), and analyst’s fee (£2 6s 6d) on the first charge, and on the second information he was fined court costs (10s). Time was allowed for payment. Mrs Ma shall was convicted and discharged. Gerald W. Cushions was charged with selling liquor in a no-license district on June 31, and keeping liquor for sale within a no-license district on June 24 ail lrene Cashion, wife of the previous defendant, for whose absence a medical certificate was produced, was charged with selling liquor on June 24 In these instances, stated Sergeant MacLean, the defendant and his wife on separate occasions had sold a bottle ot whisky and two bottles of home-brew (proof spirit 8.08) to a constable. When a search was made the police bad found at the defendant’s residence 24 empty beer bottles, four empty whisky bottles, and a home-brew of about 11 gallons in process of manufacture. , , , Mr Sumpter appeared for the defendants and stated that the Cushions had commenced home-brewing only a few months ago. They had been tempted by friends to start dealing in whisky. The business had not proved, a profitable venture, and since the raid the defendant had lost his employment in a position where he had worked for about 12 years. Cashion was fined £25 on the first charge with court costs (10s), and analyst’s fee (£2 11s 6d), and he was convicted and -discharged on the second count. Mrs Cashion was convicted and fined court costs (10s), time being allowed for payment. , . John Robertson Parlane was, charged with selling liquor on June 9 m a nolicense district, and with keeping liquor for sale in a no-license district. Senior Sergeant Mac Lean stated that this was the worst of the series of charges. Parlane had been previously fined twice for breaches of the Licensing Act—£2o for selling liquor and £SO for keeping liquor for sale. These offences had occurred in September, 1027, :and later in the same year he had been sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for resisting the police. He had also been fined £3 for trespassing on a racecourse. Parlane had sold half a bottle of whisky to the constable, and bad charged Bs. He had to d the constable that this charge was only (id more than he had paid for the half bottle in a Dunedin hotel. The police had every reason to believe that Parlane had been dealing extensively in liquor for some years. Selling whisky was looked upon as a more serious offence than selling home-brew. When the defendant s premises had been searched the police had discovered 13 empty whisky bottles, 42 empty beer bottles, and half a bottle of whisky. Parlane stated that the constable had asked him for half a bottle of whisky, as he (the constable! was feeling “pretty crook.” The empty bottles found on the premises had been lying about for several months, and were covered with dirt. Andrew Lilburne Hood stated that the empty bottles had been lying about Parlane’s yard for several months and had gradually accumulated. The magistrate remarked that in his “sly-grog” dealings Parlane was a danger to the community. He had been fined £7O in 1027 for offences of this class. This did not have the desired effect of stopping his elicit trade, though it should have proved a lesson for life/ He would be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On the second information he was convicted and discharged.