ALLEGED SLY GROG-SELLING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 20

ALLEGED SLY GROG-SELLING.

At the Mosgiel Police Court on Saturday William Crossan and Elizabeth Crossan, of Berwick, were charged with unlawfully exposing alcoholic liquor for sale on the 23rd July. Mr Fraser appeared to prosecute on behalf of Inspector Pardy, and Mr Solomon for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Fraser stated in his opening that on the date mentioned a posse of police paid a surprise visit to defendant's store at Berwick. Some of the police went to the front of the house and one of them to the back. The latter saw Mrs Crossan come out of the back door with a demijohn in her hand, but when she saw the officer she ran back again. The constables searched the place, and they found a demijohn containing whisky and a number of bottles of wine labelled "Port," or rather with the word "Port" sealed on them. In an outhouse at the back BAveral casks of fruit wina ware found, r JChe

wine had been analysed and was found to Ib'a alcoholic, containing more alcohol than the strongest beer. This would be proved by Prq-i fessor Black. Mr Solomon said that the 'fact that the wine was alcoholic would be admitted. It was recognised that fruit wines necessarily contained alcohol. Mr Fraser continued to say that there_ was also found in this outhouse a cask containing about a couple of gallons of whisky, while in a house about 40 or 50 yards away there were stored several empty barrels. He added that there could be no moral doubt that the liquor, was on the premises for an illegal purpose. Mr Solomon : That is not fair comment. Mr Fraser: There is not the slightest moral doubt as to the actual facts of the case. Mr Solomon: I must object to you dealing with that aspect of the case. It has nothing to do with any of us. Constable Hanson then gave evidence that he, in company wth Constables Christie and Carmody and Sergeant Higgins, visited the defendant's place. When they went into the front shop they told Mrs Crossan what they came for, and then proceeded to make a search. In a pantry off the sitting room they found 17 bottles of port wine and a demijohn containing whisky. Fifteen bottles of the wine were sealed. They were all corked. In an outhouse they found several casks, which Mrs Cro3san said contained black currant and gooseberry, wine. Another cask contained about two gallons of whisky. They also searched premises belonging to defendant situated at aboxit 40 or 50 yards away, and in this they found several casks. Mrs Crossan said she only kept the whisky to supply customers when they came to pay their accounts. She also stated that tho wine was made locally from blackberry, gooseberry, or rhubarb. To Mr Solomon : He understood Mrs Crossan to mean that she kept whisky to give her customers when they paid their accounts. He did not understand Mrs Crossan to mean that she* sold the drink. There was no liquor of any description in the shop. Tho liquor in the pantry was under the lower shelf. In the outhouse the casks were all closed, with the exception t>f one, which was on tap. There were also some empty casks there, together with a> quantity of merchandise. Sergeant Higgins said that when the police arrived at defendant's place he went to the back of the premises. He had not been there long: before Mrs Crossan appeared with a small demijohn in her hand. When she saw witness she went back again. Witness remained at the door of the outhouse where the casks of wine were stored. There was only one demijohn found in the house. It contained whisky and waa similar to the one Mrs Crossan carried in, her hand. Mr Solomon said he admitted the facts as set forth in the police evidence. Mr Fraser said Professor Black was in the court to give evidence as to the nature of tha wine, Mr Solomon said he would admit that the wine was alcoholic. He would admit that ifc was a fruit wine made in the locality. Mr Fraser said he would close the case then. Mr Solomon said the case must fail. There was not the slightest evidence that the liquor, was exposed for sale. His Worship (to Mr Fraser) : Do you say there is any evidence that the liquor was exposed for sale. Mr Fraser : I rely on section 172. The fact of a person not being a licensed person keeping inoro liquor than is usual on his premises. Mr Solomon: It has not even been shown that defendants are not licensed. His Worship : They are not charged with unlawfully selling. They are charged with exposing for sale. Where is the evidence of exposing for sale ? Mv Fraser : Liquor in large quantities on tap in an open building. Mr Solomon: That is not evidence of exposing for sale. His Worship : If it wore exposed with other gcoda for sale then there might be some evidence. Mr Solomon: Do you mean to say that if a person has liquor on tap in his house he can. be charged with exposing liquor for sale ? Mr Fraser said they must take the circumstances of the case as they found them. The police could not overlook a large quantity of liquor like that. Mr Solomon said he quite understood Mr Fraser's position. The case waa dismissed. * A second charge of unlawfully dealing in alcoholic liquors was withdrawn. Mr Solomon said he did not know if it were necessary for his Worship to make an order for. the return of the liquor to the defendants. His Worship thought that no order, was necessary.