THE CLINTON PROSECUTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2317, 28 July 1898, Page 27

THE CLINTON PROSECUTION.

Another charge of sly grog-s;-iling cams bsforo Mr Hawkius, S.M., at Clinton on Fridaj', when Richard Irving, a boarding-house keeper, was charged with selling wbi-ky on 'he sth iust. Mr J. F. M. Fraser, Crown pr. sccutor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr D. D. Macdonald appeared for the defendant.

The case was a eomewhat lengthy one. Two wiimsiea were called for tbe prostitution, and live for the defence. Ttii Jailer were cross-<x-.!»ioed at some leugLh by the Crown prosecutor, who asked that a substantial penalty should be imposed. The witnesses for tho police were Constables Ciu'ckshank and Melville, who gavu evidcrce that tkey engaged rooms on the sfch inst. TLey a'.ked li viug for drink*. He replied that it wro s ptohibitinn district, but eventually agreed to supply them. They were supplied vrith whisky, anci midi-red in payment £1, receiving back 19- change.

For the defence Mr D. D. Mhcdouald called Stc witnesses. The evidence ot David Murray was to the effect that Irviug supplied the witnesses for the prosecution witb a •' nigbtcap," but did not take any money. Hugh Smith, in the employ of Irving, deposed tbafc he was in the passage when Irving wao asked for a drink by Cruickshank. Irviug refused at first, but then eaid that he would give them a "nightcap" but would not sell it. Witness saw the men having a drink, but saw nothing paid for it. H. P. Martin, commercial traveller, deposed that he heard the men asking for a drink, and heard Irving say something about not taking money as he had no license. Whilst he was in the house he saw three men having drinks, but no money j)jS3ed. Corroborative evidence was giveu by Alexander Gorson, a railway porter. John Palmer, a. labourer, said he saw Melviile on the verandah od the morniug of the Btb icsfc. Melville asked witness to go over to Geddes'o for a drink, and said he had received a drink at Irviug's, but the latter would take no money.

Richard Irving, the defendant, denied absolutely the truth of the story told by Ccuickshank and Melville, Their evidence was untrue. Probably there was liquor in the bar oh the night in question. He gave away a good deal.

His Worship said he was compelled to discredit the evidence for the defence. Defendant would be fined £40.

An order was made authorising the police to destroy the liquor seized. Leave was granted to Mr Macdonald to appeal, the security being fixed ab £60.