SLY GROG-SELLING AT BALCLUTHA

Otago Witness, Issue 2368, 20 July 1899, Page 28

SLY GROG-SELLING AT BALCLUTHA

DEFENDANTS PLEAD GUILTY.

At the Magistrate's Court at Balclutha on the 12th, before Mr H. A. Stratford, S.M., several charges of sly grog-selling were brought up. The first case was that wherein

Alexander Murray was charged with selling gin without a license at Balclutha on June 22. Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Fraser, Crown prosecutor, who appeared on behalf of the police to prosecute, said that there was another information, which might be taken at the same time. Mr Macdonald raised no objection. The second charge was that of selling liquor at Balclutha on the 27th June.

Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendant. He said that he was instructed to plead, guilty, and he had also been instructed to withdraw his plea of not guilty iv the former case and substitute a plea of guilty. Counsel added that his Worship would note that the cases occurred about the same time, and although the defendant might have put the prosecution lo considerable trouble to prove the case, he had decided to plead guilty. Counsel trusted his Worship would take into consideration the fact that defendant had not thrown any obstruction in the way of the prosecution, but had assisted the court as far as he could. His learned friend would admit that there would have been a considerable fight if the case had been contested, and he hoped his Worship would take that fact into consideration in assessing the punishment.

The Crown Prosecutor stated that the defendant was a boarding-house keeper, resident at Balclutha, which was a prohibition district. The defendant was not one of the original 'licensees who had lost their licenses. In both cases the proceedings were the result of considerable diligence and trouble on the part of the police. It had been ascertained by the police officers that residents in the district liad been drinking in the hotel, and the information was laid accordingly. That was as regarded the first case. In the second case whisky, beer, and lemonade wero supplied, also to residents in the district, but on another date. It was perfectly true as to what his learned friend had said in regard to the defendant facilitating the proceedings by pleading guilty, inasmuch as the prosecution would have to depend on witnesses the exact nature of whose evidence they had had no opportunity of ascertaining. It was his duty, however, to point out that the defendant was fined for a similar offence on the 29th July, 1898.

Mr MactlonaM : I admit ho was fined £30 on that date.

His Worship i What are the expenses in connection with tho prosecution?

The court was informed that the costs in the first case amounted to £2 17s, and in the second case to £2 7s, exclusive of professional fee.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the defendant pleaded guilty to breaches of the act. It was generally accepted that an offender in doing so expressed regret for having broken the law, and if ho expressed regret for his offence it was also to be accepted that, at any rate, he intended in future to avoid a repetition of the offence. But it was very difficult to recognise that in this case, inasmuch at, a year ago the defendant was convicted of a, similar offence, and a severe penalty under the act was inflicted. After a year' had gone by he repeated the offence. Even then it might be said that he had resisted the temptation for a whole twelve months, but seven days after he gave way to it by committing the offence again, which would go to indicate thatr he would continue the offences. However, the fact that he had made an admission of his offences ought to be considered as something in his favour. There was no doubt that the law provided for a fine which would act as a deterrent in these cases, as the maximum penalty for tho fir&l offence was £50, for the second £100, and for the third £100, but in the latter case the magistrate also had tho power to send tho offender lo prison for six months. It was quite evident therefore that the Legislature intended to have the act carried out so as to deter the commission of this very serious offence. Generally speaking, he had read the act to meau that it would be manifestly unfair that a hotelkeeper who had lo pay a license fee should have to compete against a man selling liquor without having paid any license fee. That, however, did not apply in this case, as he was administering the law in a district where no one was allowed to sell liquor. Anyone wishing to take liquor had to do so in their own places. He had always endeavoured, God helping him, to administer the laws, not necessarily severely, but sufficiently severe to cause them to be recognised, and he administered them on behalf of his employers, tho Legislature of the country. In this case he thought it was his duty to make the penalty, including the costs, to be at least equal to the fine inflicted twelve months ago. He did not think, in regard to costs, that if thfT Government employed counsel, costs should be allowed in that respect. It was not intended that the Crown should be revengeful. The costs should be included in the penalty, and the Crown should pay for its own solicitor. He was of opinion, therefore, that the merits of the case would be met in the following way : The defendant to be convicted and fined £10, and costs (£2 17sh in the first case; and £15, and costs (£2 7s), in the second ; amounting altogether to about the sum wherein he was fined last year — namely, £30.

Three weeks were allowed wherein to pay the fine, and the liquor (which Mr Macdonald stated was small in quantity) seized on the premises was ordered to be confiscated.

The next case wad that wherein Edith Isabel Pascoe, wife of James Herbert Pascoe, was charged with selling v/hisky and beer at Balclutha on Juno 21. Mr Paterson appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. In the course of his remarks counsel said it was a matter for fair •comment, and he pointed out what were the facts relating to the sale of liquor in that district. The facts were that in 1894- a poll taken resulted in prohibition being carried. In 1895 an amending act" passed the legislature, which was evidently intended to have a special application to the Clutha district. Owing lo the alteration of the boundaries of the electorate, 'however, the poll could not be taken under the provisions of the amending act, but the poll was taken under the old act, so that the highest vote that could be given was that licenses should remain as they were before. The effect of the poll that licenses should remain as they were before was deemed tc be carried. He submitted that the fact that that was carried proved that the community had reversed its previous decision — that was to say, that opinion and sentiment in regard to the sale of liquor had altered. Now, it might be said that the opinion, and sentiment, and feeling of the community had no effect when placed against positive law; but he would quote Austen to show that there were factors that went in the direction of the mitigation of the offence. His Worship : ,1 do not want to interfere with the address of counsel, but it seems tome that he is speaking as if h© were bringing a bill before the House. — (Laughter.) Mr Paterson: I want to show that there are grounds for pleading . mitigation. His Worship : I shall think lam Speaker of the House if you go on that way. Mr Paterson : It is unfortunate that I have to gc into these particulars, but opinion and sentiment are regarded as qualities of mitigation. His Worship : You are placing me on a pedestal much higher than I occupy. I have been sworn to administer the acts so far as I can understand them. Some of them Ido not understand, but I get the help of my brethren at the bar. Mr Paterson: Well, I will simply plead that this is defendant's first offence. His Worship : That's right. You are making a great deal toe much of it. I would sooner come down a peg. Counsel then went on to plead extenuating circumstances, stating that it was Mrs Pascoe's first offence, that the seizure of liquor amounting to £15 was in itself a serious punishment, and that defendant's husband wa3 then practically dying from an injury he received while in the execution of his duty when he was in the police force. The Crown Prosecutor, in the course of .some remarks, said thai it was pimply his duty to bring the cases before the court and secure a conviction. The amount of the penalty inflicted was a matter entirely f?r his Worship. As to the seizure of £15 Worth of liquor, it might be iirged that" was some .indication of the amount of trade that was being carried on. Mr Paterson said that defendant did notorder the liquor, it was, in fact, forced upon them. His Worship: I don't pay any attention ' to' a statement like that. That is too thin. Defendant will be convicted and fined £10 and costs (£2 10s 3d). No professional costs were allowed. _ Mr Fraser said thai there was another charge against defendant, which he would withdraw' as the evidence was not adequate to. support a conviction. There were two charges against her hubband, but as he understood that the latter was very ill, in fact in extremis*, lie would not be justified in proceeding with them. The other informations were withdrawn accordingly.