ALLEGED SLY GROG-SELLING

Otago Witness, Issue 3097, 23 July 1913, Page 8

ALLEGED SLY GROG-SELLING

KAITANGATA RESIDENT IN COURTTWO CHARGES DISMISSED. In the Magistrate’s Court at Kaitangata on the I7tn Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M., was called upon to adjudicate in a case ot alleged ely-grog selling, which had been preterred against a local resident. ine evidence disclosed a strangely sordid state of affairs, and in many instances unseemly reflections were levelled against tne sobuetj of the town. . . The matter received ventilation from a charge against Alfred Croft that between June 5 and 15 he did unlawfully keep liquor for sale at Kaitangata, in the no-hcenso district of Bruce, and further that he did unlawfully allow ins premises to be used as a. place of resort tor the consumption ot liquor. Mr R. R. Grigor appeared for tne defendant, and entered a. plea of i\ot guilty” on both the charges. Superintendent Dwyer, who conducted the prosecution, stated that the first chaige was laid under section 146 of the Licensing Act 1908, and '.lie second under section 61 of the Amending Act, The defendant was a minor living in Kaitangata. lie was a poor man, and had been out of employment for some considerable time. From June 5 to June 14 he had received four 5-gal!on kegs of beer from the Caversham Brewery. Prior to this time the constable had had the man’s place under observation, and he only located trouble there about June 14. Ho then realised that the man was getting quantities ot ‘‘grog” into his place and was being visited bv his friends. The constable had starched'the place on the morning of the 15th and found a keg that Had been icceived almost empty on the I4tb. He also found several other empty kegs on the premises that had been received between tlic sth and the 14th. The constable had seized the unfinished kog, but did not take jxisscssion of the others. Defendant had told the constable how the liquor was disposed of. The man had also receded quantities of liquor prior to June 5. James G. 11. Briggs, brewer, of Caversham, stated that he had received moneyorder telegrams from the defendant on June 5, 11, 13, i 4. and lie had forwarded beer in response on the same dates. Cross-examined by Mr Grigor, witness stated that for the nine months prior to the date of the charges lie had only sent defendant two kegs of' beer. Henry Coop (station master at Stirling) was ciilcd to prove the receipt of the kegs on the various dates mentioned, but at this stage Mr Grigor volunteered the information that the receipt of the liquor would be admitted by the defence. Constable Martin stated that the defendant had been out of work for some considerable time, and during that period he had been receiving the liquor mentioned in the charges. About June 6 or 7 tie noticed several poisons entering defendant s house on a number of occasions, while others were seen standing on the road. On June 9, from “ confidential information received,” ho drew up a search warrant, and on the 14th lie saw a keg arrive at defendant’s place. On the morning of the 15th he visited the man’s house shortly after 8 o'clock, and found the keg nearly empty. As far as he could remember the keg had had been delivered about 10 o'clock. “ Of course,” continued the witness, ‘‘on Saturday night everybody ” Mr Grigor: Yes; everybody has it on Saturday nights. Continuing, witness stated that lie had seized the keg and taken it to the police station. Croft had stated to him on one occasion that lie could not afford to pay for the beer himself. Cross-examined by Mr Grigor, witness stated that by Juno 15 he had arrived at the conclusion that too much liquor was going into the premises. He did not know whether it was a fact that all tile time the man was out of work he had been receiving £3 a week. Ilis most favourable opportunity for executing the search warrant was at 8 o’clock on Sunday morning. He had made two raids during the past month or so in connection with illicit trading. Mr Grigor submitted that lie had no case whatever to answer, as the whole story of the prosecution depended entirely on the fact that the man had received four kegs of liquor within a week. A great number of similar cases were heard of in Kaitangata, and four keg# did not represent a great deal of liquor when there was “a spree” on there. This man’s wife and family were eway from home, and his friends had been in to share the liquor with him. The superintendent had stated that he was a

poor man, but that statement was entirely unsupported. The Magistrate: It is hardly unsupported, for the court also has the constable’s evidence on tlie point. Continuing, Mr Grigor stated that Croft was getting his insurance money, and was also receiving funds from the benefit society in connection with the mine. It was not suggested that the man had drunk all the liquor himself, although it was not beyond tiie bounds of possibility. The constable had taken out a search warrant on the 9th, and if he had had the house under observation is was somewhat surprising that he had not put it into execution before the 15th. To have liquor in Kaitangata on Sunday morning was no uncommon thing—in fact, ‘‘everybody was doing it” and practically the same result would have been obtained in a number of other places. He contended that the evidence would have to be stronger before the case could be proved. There was no ease to answer at all. Tlie Magistrate said that, it had been proved that the defendant had received a considerable quantity of liquor on his premises, and the onus was on the defence to prove that it was not kept for sale. Mr Grigor stated that the onus was not on himself to prove that defendant’s premises were not a place of resort for the consumption of liquor. The Magistrate said that both charges scorned to be inseparably bound up. There was prima facie proof that liquor was kept for sale, and that being so it seemed to him that tlie further charge of keeping a place of resort simply hinged on the prior circumstances. Mr Grigor staled that tlie facts were very simple, but perhaps not very creditable to the defendant, at anyrate they did not brng him within the censure of the law. The defendant was not a poor man The Magistrate: What is a poor man? Mr Grigor: The superintendent’s idea of a poor man was one who could not buy beer or have u “ spree ” upon four kegs in a week. Tlie Superintendent: The defendant told tlie constable that he had a wife and four children to keep, and that he couid not afford to buy beer. Continuing, Mr Grigor stated that the defendant got over £3 a week while he was out of work. During the foregoing nine months Croft had been very temperate, and when his wife and children went away for a few days he thought he would give his friends something of a treat. It was not a very serious “spree,” and a five-gallon keg was not a very serious proposition for four or five men. One keg could be finished in an evening quite easily, ho believed. The man’s conduct was very foolish, and possibly the story was a somewhat sordid one. The man was able to afford liis spree, and he had not sold the liquor. The execution of the search warrant on Sunday morning had made it difficult to get witnesses. The defendant would swear that he had not sold any liquor, and that none was brought there to sell Alfred Croft, being sworn, stated that ho had been in Kaitangata for nine months and had earned between £3 10s and £3 15s a week. He had paid his way, and did not owe any money, while lie had paid off’ several debts. His wife bad gone away from home on Juno 6, and between that date and the following Saturday lie received four kegs of beer. Ho paid for all of these himself, and did not sell any of the liquor. On different occasions be had friends in, and tlie beer had been freely consumed. During the previous nine months he had ordered only two kegs mid a small quantity of bottled liquor. ihe position simply was that bis wife bad left borne and lie had had a bit of a spree.— Cross-examined by Superintendent Dwyer, witness stated that be owed in all about £lB to various firms. The keg tha - .. was received about 9 o’clock on the Saturday evening was drunk during the night and up till tlie time of the constable’s arrival. In delivering judgment the Magistrate said that with regard to the charge of keeping liquor for sale, the onus was on the defendant to give a sufficient account of its disposal when the fact of possession had been proved. The question in tins case was whether that account bad been given. While the evidence of the defendant disclosed a most discreditable state of affairs, lie thought ho had given an adequate explanation as to the disposal of the liquor. The best evidence 'o<? that point was that of Saturday night. The keg arrived at 9 o’clock, and on Sunday morning there was only one gallon left. The defendant had stated that four men had done away with the liquor, and if they had it was nothing to bo proud of, but no doubt it was a fact in Kaitangata. There bad been no evidence by the Unstable as to persons going backwards apd forwards to the house, and the Act ijl.d not prohibit

the occupier of a house from supplying his personal friends with liquor.- Even when the constable had passed the house at midnight on Saturday he had observed nothing unusual. The evidence put forward by the defence had been to the effect that the man had been having a drinking bout, and it was adequate on that point. Both informations would bo dismissed.