THE OTAKIA SLY-GROG CASES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2396, 1 February 1900, Page 8

THE OTAKIA SLY-GROG CASES.

The charges of sly grog-selling at Otakia came before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., at the City Police Court, on Thursday, and -were all heard and dismissed or withdrawn.

James Carr was charged with selling, on the 28th of Decembe^, at Olakia, a bottle of beer without being licensed to do so.

Mr J. F. M. Fraser conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr' Hanlon appeared for the defendant.

. Mr Frasef, in opening the case, said on the 2Sth ox December Richard Palmer and William Palmer, two farmers residing at Otakia were in the house of James Carr, a labourer at Otakia, m the evening. When in xhe house William Palmer gave Carr Is, and asked him to get a bottle ot beer with it. Carr took the money, went outside, and immediately afterwards returned with -a bottle of colonial bee/, which was consumed by all preheat. The nearest licensed house to this place was three miles away, so that the distance precluded the possibility of Carr having got it from a licensed hotel. That was xhe case against the defendant, and the learned counsel submitted that unless the defendant could satisfactorily account for the supply of this liquor in such a way as to satisfy his Worship that there had been no sale, the defendant should be convicted.

William Palraer, a farmer residing at Otakia, deposed that en the evening of 23th of December he was in James Carr's hoiise at Otak'ia. At about 7 o'clock witness's brother, Richard, came in, and witness asked defendant Carr to get a bottle of beer, giving him Is for that purpose. Carr weirc outside the house^ and in 15 or 20 minutes returned with a bottle of beer, which was drunk by those present.

To Mr Ranlon : This happened on the 28th of December. He did not remember the day of the week, but it was not a Sunday. It might have been a Satuiday. He was not sure it was on the 28th of December; would not swear to it. Carr might have been away half an hour. Witness had had. a good few drinks that day. He often had. His memory was clear as to what had taken plaice. Richard James Balmer gave similar evidence. On. the 28th of December he was standing at the Otakia,' Post Office, saw his brother go to Carr's house, and followed him there.

Cross-examined : Witness's brother at the time appeared, to have had a few glasses, and witness had himself had two or three glasses. Witness could not tell the day of the week; he had forgotten that. He knew it was the 28th because his brother was sending sheep away that day. He would not swear the sheep had not been sent away on 'the 27th. He did not know what day it was. He did not know the date. He now remembered the sheep were to go away on Thursday, the 28th.

This concluded the case

His Worship said he did not think he need ask Mr Hanlon to go on. There was no evidence that the deiendant sold a bottle of beer. He might have gone next door for it.

Mr Hanlon submitted that in this case the defendant • was entitled to coats. Though it was not usual to allow costs against the police it was perfectly obvious that for sufficient reason the bench would depart from the ordinary course of refusing costs. The defendant now before the court had been subpoenaed as a witness, and had come to give evidence in another case against another person, and while waiting to give evidence he was served with a summons charging him with having sold the liquor, which he had been subpoenaed to prove another person had sold. That the case had been dismissed without the defendant being called upon to answer it showed that the information had been laid for no other purpose than to try to intimidate him into giving evidence, which, it was anticipated, he would not be willing to give. Learned counsel submitted that the process of law should not be invoked in order to compel a man to give evidence, and when such a case was dismissed without calling ivpon the defence, in view of the manner in which proceedings had been taken, costs should be allowed against the Crown.

His Worship said he would not call upon Mr Fraser to reply.

Mr Fraser desired to say, in reply to the suggestion of intimidation, that it had come to the knowledge of the police that the accused would go into the box, and deny that he had gone for beer at all His Worship said it was clear the beer had not been got in a legitimate way, and he should refuse to allow coats,— .Case dismissed.

James Carr was charged with selling whisky at Otakia on December 28 without a license.

Mr Fraser appeared for the prosecution, ancl Mr Hanlon for the defence.

Mr Fraser stated that in this case he had to be guided to a great extent by his Worship's decision in the last case. It was a similar case) to the last case. He could not prove the defendant actually supplied the liquor itself. Ha could not get the actual truth of tho matter, but if his Worship thought the evidence was sufficient to cast the onus on the defendant to account for himself in the matter the evidence would be called.

His Worship said that the evidence went td show that he got money to buy liquor, but it did not show where.

Mr Fraser: In that case I do not feel justified in occupying the time of the court. His Worship : The charge is withdrawn then ? Mr Fraser: Yes, sir.

The case was accordingly withdrawn. John O'Leary was charged with selling whisky without having a license on December 28, 1899, at Otakia.

Mr Macdonald: Defendant pleads noi guilty, and I appear for him.

Mr Fraser said he would call Carr, the defendant in the last case, and see if he coukl get the truth out of him regarding this one. James Carr, labourer, living at Otakia, said defendant was in his house between Christmas and the New Year. Witness did not go to O'Leary's 'house for anything during that period. He knew nothing of liquor in connection with O'Leary or Palmer. Mr Macdonald: I have nothing to ask. Mr Fraser: I don't see my way to go any fuither. This is the connecting link. Mr Macdonald : I sxibmit there is no case. His Worship : The prosecution is dismissed. John O'Leary was further charged with selling liquor on November '30, 1899. Mr Macdonald appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Mr Fraser stated that on the date in question a man named- Davey Taylor was in Carr's house, and he was given 2s 6d to purchase a flask of whisky. He went outside, and brought tin whisky back. From the information given the police this liquor was got at defendant's house. At anyrate it did not grow in the tusfocks at Otakia. It must have been obtained somewheie. Somebody sold it.

David Taylor, blacksmith, Otakia, said he was not at James Carr's house on or about November 30. He did not see James Palmer that day. He did not make any purchase at O'Leary's of whisky at any time. He never saw Palmer about that time at all.

Mr Macdonald: I have nothing to ask, I submit there is no evidence. Mr Fraser : I admit that. His Worship: The case is dismissed. Three othpr charges against defendant, and four against his wife were withdrawn.

David Taylor was charged with selling liquor on November 30 at Otakia.

Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Mr Fraser stated that in this case William Palmer was at Carr's house on the date mentioned. There weie also there xhe young man named David Taylor, the de/t-jidant. Carr'a house was next to the house of a man called! O'Leary. Defendant was given 2s 6d to go for a flask of whisky. He went out and returned with it. It was quite possible that defendant had a reasonable explanation as to where he got the beer, 'but, if he had not, he laid himself open to a .charge of sly-grog' set* ling himself.

William Palmer, farmer at Otakia, said he was in Carr's place on Noven ")3r 30. He saw David Tpylor there. He- gave - 1 im half a crown to get a flpsk of whisky. He -vas away about 20 minutes. The whisky was dn>nk in Care's.

To Mr Hanlon : There were in the house Jpmes Carr, Taylor, Payne, and witness himself. Witness was sure it vras «n November 30. Witness gave him half a c ti to go and get the whisky. He went out ->nd got the drink, but he did not say where

Frank Payne, living at Otakia, said he waa at Carr's house on November 30. was not there so far as he knew. He never saw whisky there.

James Carr, labourer, said that Taylor had been in his house, but he could not fix any dates. He never remembered whisky being biought to his house when Taylor, Palmer, and Payne were at his house.

Mr Fraser said that with the exception of Palmer he had some very ragged witnesses, and he could not ask the court to accept their evidence.

His Worship: It is very evident there is some very strong lying somewhere. Mr Fraser: It is nothing unusual. His Worship : The case is dismissed without costs.