CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3332, 23 January 1918, Page 5

CITY POLICE COURT

Friday, January 18. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Sly Grog-selling.—Maurice and Maud Langley (husband and wife) were charged with, on December 26, selling liquor without having a license so to do.—Mr B. S. | Irwin appeared for both defendants, who ' pleaded "Not guilty."—Sub-inspector Mathieson conducted the prosecution. —Sergeant Thomson deposed that, about 9.10 p.m. on December 26, accompanied by Constable Peters, he visited defendant's premises at 77 Frederick street. Both stood I close to the kitchen window, and from what they heard, concluded that drinking | was going on. They heard beer called for. '. Being disturbed, they then took up a fresh position about 30ft from the scullery, the doors of which were open. On three separate occasions they heard beer asked } for, and on each occasion the female de--1 fendant came out and returned with capsuled bottles. Two other men entered duringl that time. Subsequently Langley and a man named Bayliss came out into the yard, and the latter said: " We're mugs; he's drinking and making us pay." They returned to the kitchen, and one said. "You must pay," or "You must shout," arid witness heard the answer, "We will do our duty." Then they saw and heard ! Mrs Langley apparently counting money. He heard a voice say: "There will be a kear here to-morrow night." Another voice asked: "Whore did you get all these?" and the reply, as far as he could make out, was. "From Speight's." Witness and Constable Peters then entered, and found six persons there, exclusive of the two defendants and their son. A full bottle of Kaka ale was on the table, also two empty bottles, a cup with beer in it, and four glasses. The names of the men were: John Mackay, John Pawley. Walter Thomas Heller. Harry Bayliss. Alfred Peeves, and John Dent. Several of the men showed si«ns of havinsr had liquor. The male defendant at first admitted that the beer was his. but subsequently corrected this statement by saying that the beer belonged to Bayliss. The female defendant corroborated her husband's statement... Witness told her that lie saw her -bringing the beer, and asked her to show him where the liquor was. She took him to the front of the house and showed him a bottle of beer. He told the male defendant that he would have to report him for exposing liquor for sale. He said that would be' all. right, "I will go to Nick, that will save me from going to the trenches."—Constablo Peters- corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. ( On three different occasions he saw Mrs Langley go to the front of the house and return carryino- beer.—Cross-examined by Mr Irwin : He saw no evidence of cake ■ in the kitchen He saw some lemonade.—John Dent said he was 18 years of age Ho remembered being in the house of Mr and Mrs Langley on the evening m question. He went to see Langleys* boy, who was a chum of his. He saw beer, also lemonade, served by Mrs iLangley. A third round of drinks was served. He observed one of the men throw a two shilling piece on the table. He saw Mrs Langley receive money and then go to the front of the house and return with two bottles of beer and one of lemonade. He also saw cako °orved Witness and one of the men had lemonade, the others had beer.—Cross- ' examined by Mr Irwin: He noticed Mrs Langley change a pound for one of tne men.—Mr Irwin, in stating the case for the defence, said that both defendants would having sold any liquor. The array of empty bottles in court was no doubt intended to impress the magistrate that thero was sly grog-selling. There was something like three dozen emptybottles which had previously contained ale, which counsel contended was not an unusual quantity for a man to have in his hou=e during a Christmas season when he had friends to treat. Tho only liquor found on the premises was three bottles of beer. | It could not be contended that, tho defendants were sly grog-sellers. If they were sly grog-sellers they were the most amateurish "sly° grog-sellers he (counsel) had ever heard of. —Maurice Langley deposed that on the night in question Bayliss purchased four bottles of ale at the Oriental Hotel, ; and witness had two presented to him.— [ Cross-examined by Inspector Mathieson: He admitted having purchased five gallons of ale at Strachan's on the 21st December last. He got a chance of getting this liquor cheap. That was the first time he ' had ever had a keg in his house. He was not aware that his house had been reported by tho neighbours as a drunken den. Ho occasionally entertained a few friends at his house.—Maud Langloy denied that she received any money for liquor, or that she had changed a pound.—Alfred Reeves, crane driver on tho railways at Port Chalmers, deposed that he visited - Langleys' house on the night in question in company with a man named Heller. Langley gave

him. a drink of beer, and then another man who was .present pulled a bottle of beer out of his pocket and witness had a drink from it. Fie saw no money pass.—Crossexamined by the sub-inspector: He denied having remarked that he was "stoneybroke." He had no money in his possession. That was the first and only occasion on which he had been in Langley's house. John Pawley, hairdresser; stated that he was present at Langley's house on December 26. He had a glass of beer at Langley's, but saw nothing in the nature of a sale of liquor.—His Worship, in giving his decision, said he was satisfied that there had been a sale of liquor. The evidence of the police was corroborated by the witness Dent. The empty bottles found on the premises \va3 also evidence of a quantity of liquor having been consumed. Both defendants would bo convicted. ■ The evidence did not show that sly grog-selHng was carried on in a wholesale manner, but still it was proved that defendants had cbtaincd money for liquor consumed. The police records showed that the male defendant was of dissolute habits. That being so, he did not suppose that ho was in a position to purchase large supplies of liquor, but relied on his friends to furnish their share of the fightmq- funds. He was satisfied thai/-tll3 female defendant was under the'domination of her husband. The male defendant would he fined £lO. with costs, and th«? fern file defendant would be convicted and discharged.