SLY GROG-SELLING.

Otago Witness, Issue 1581, 4 March 1882, Page 8

SLY GROG-SELLING.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Outram, on Saturday, before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M., Henry Wiles was charged, on the information of William Ward, with having on October 2nd, 1881, in a certain house at North Taieri, then in the occupation of the said Henry Wiles, he not being a person duly licensed under "The Licensing Act, 1881, to sell alcoholic liquors, and not being a druggist, chemist, apothecary, nor duly-licensed auctioneer, unlawfully and knowingly sold to one William Ward a certainty quantity of alcoholic liquor for drinking, and not perfumery nor medicine—to wit, two glasses of whisky, contrary to " The Licensing Act, 1881. " Constable Lyons prosecuted, and Mr Denniston, who appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. William Ward, a labourer on the railway, living at Wingatui, remembered the 2nd October last, when he went to accused's house in company with one John Cassidy. A man named George Summers and accused were in the house at the time. The day was a Sunday. He had owed accused's wife a few shillings, and he gave her a pound to pay the amount. He called for two drinks for Cassidy and himself, and they were supplied by the accused's wife. He asked for whisky. Mrs Wiles returned him 10s, keeping nine shillings as the sum of the account, and one shilling as the price of the drinks. Accused was present and saw what was going on. By Mr Denniston : Witness had never boarded with accused, and had only got two meals in the place in his lifetime. Cassidy had nothing to do with supplying the liquor. He would swear that the men never brought the ; whisky with them. Witness was submitted to a very severe crossexamination by Mr Denniston, but consistently adhered to his statements throughout. George Summers, a miner, residing at North Taieri, gave corroborative evidence, and said that Ward, Cassidy, and himself all paid for drinks on that occasion. Accused was present, and had a glass of beer with them at the same time as the others, Constable Lyons stated he had just received a telegram from Superintendent Weldon to the effect that the police had been unable to find ; Casßidy, who was supposed to be in Oamaru, and' for whom a subpoena requiring him to attend as a witness had been issued. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Denniston here submitted that there had been no evidence of sale by Wiles. This was a case in which a person had paid a pound for a particular debt, and besides the amount due Mrs Wiles had retained a shilling, of which Wiles was not aware. The affair was said to have taken place five months ago, and he need hardly point out that if a revengeful man like this should only invent such a story it was impossible for them to disprove it. The story was clearly a concocted one. There were a lot of objections to the form of the summons. There was no proof whatever that the money retained was not part of the sum due, the drink supplied being merely a shout customary on the settling up of an account; His Worship : There is evidence of a large number of sales, and as to whether what was done was done with accused's knowledge. ' Mr Denniston : There is no evidence of payment. His Worship : Yes. Mr Denniston : If your Worship thinks it right that a charge five months old should be brought against the accused, envious men have him at their mercy %vhen the witnesses whom he might have brought to disprove their statements are scattered to the four winds. He then suggested that the information should be amended. His Worship: The information is drawn up very well, and there is a great deal of latitude to enable It to be amended. Mr Denniston : I object to it in its present form. I want it reduced to theneW Act. It was framed under one Act to meet another. His Worship : It was drawn up with more care'than was required. Mr Denniston contended' that it should be reduced to the wording of the Act. _ His Worship : I think there is quite sufficient ground for a conviction. Mr Denniston : Then I take the objection that this new Act was not in force at that time, there being no districts proclaimed on the date the offence was committed. His Worship referred to section 2, which says the Act snail commence on the first day of October, 1881. Mr Denniston : The Act does not employ the usual phrase " come into force," and I submit that the effect of . section 7 is to suspend its operation absolutely until the districts are proclaimed, His Worship : It does not seem to do that. It seems from sections 6 and 7, when read along with section 230, that for some purposes the old and new Acts may be in force for a special object. Mr Denniston : Well, it is an objection I urge, and opinions in favour of it have been given. I submit that there caii be no doubt that until the machinery for working the new Act—until the licensing district— was appointed, we were under the old law. His Worship : I feel surprised at that. I confess I do not see any difficulty in the way. Mr Denniston then "called evidence for the defence. Henry Wiles, the accused, denied havinghad any liquor in his house on the day in question. It was brotight in by the complainant! Mrs Wiles said the witness Summers Avasnot in her house on October 2nd. She refused to allow the others to have any whisky on that day because they were all drunk. Cassidy and Ward were there, but she sold nothing to them. ±lis Worship said there was no doubt in his mind that an otfence had been committed. Before lie fixed the penalty he would ask the police whether they intended to go on with/the other case. The police said that as it took place at the same tune they would ask to withdraw the other information. Accused had been convicted on a previous occasion, and they had a witness there to give evidence. Mr Denniston objected to evidence being dalled. b His Worship': I can even use my own knowledge. Mr Denniston : I object. His Worship : I have the power to inflict the full penalty. I only wibh to see how much I should deduct from that penalty. Mr Denniston : It can only be for the purpose of making the penalty. I will ask your Worship to note that, in case of anything I should have to say, you cannot use your own knowledge. His Worship : Then how is a magistrate to take into consideration his penalty ? Mr Denniston reasserted his objection. His Worship : Then perhaps the best plan would be not to take tho evidence and inflict the full penalty. Mr Denniston said surety his Worship would not place him in that position, and withdrew bis objection. Sergeant Kooney, of Batolutha, was then

called, and stated that the accused had been convicted at Palmerston over three years ago of sly grog-selling, and fined £25. His Worship said he would take into consideration the fact of its having been a very long time since the offence had been committed, and would inflict a small penalty of £10, with costs. Mr Denniston asked that execution be stayed for a time to give the accused a chance of paying it, in addition to the penalty already imposed in the assault case. Constable M'JKenzie, on behalf of the police, objected, saying they had had considerable trouble with the accused on a previous occasion.

Mr Denniston asked that his Worship should state in recording his decision under what section and Act he imposed the penalty. His Worship said he need not do so, and ordered in default of the payment of the fine distress, and failing distress, one calendar month's imprisonment in Dunedin Gaol.