SUITS AND WHISKY.

Putaruru Press, Volume V, Issue 176, 17 March 1927, Page 8

SUITS AND WHISKY.

LIQUID PERSUASION. In Canvass for Orders. Possibly depression in the tailoring trade induced Leonard Alfred Baker, traveller for a Hamilton clothing firm, to conceive the idea of taking a few bottles of whisky with him when on his rounds throughout the Tokoroa plains. The police in outlining the case to Mr. W. G. ICenrick, S.M., in the Putaruru Court last Friday stated that complaints had been made by the N.Z. Perpetual Forests Ltd. in regard to liquor being 1 taken to the Maoris employed in the afforestation camps some 40 miles from Putaruru. Investigation resulted in evidence being secured which showed that Baker had been responsible. Charg’es were then laid which involved Baker in the following offences on November 28 last: Selling one bottle of whisky to C. S. Newton; selling three bottles of whisky to Bufty Eangi Hamilton; selling one bottle to Monu Kahuhiwa; selling two bottles of whisky to , J. H. Thompson; supplying one bottle of whisky to Bufty Rangi Hamilton; supplying one bottle of whisky to Monu Kahuhiwa; supplying one bottle of whisky to Harry Heperi.

Robert Alfred Schwass, foreman for N.Z. Perpetual Forests Ltd., stated that Friday, November 26, was a pay day. He went the round of the camps on the following Sunday. At No. 4 camp, which was a Maori camp, he found there had been a disturbance due to drink, and he took a bottle of whisky from the foreman of the camp, one Monu Kakuhiwa. Monu told him he had bought it from Baker for £l. Some of the Maoris were full of drink and three had been fighting. He also saw empty bottles.

Monu Kakuhiwa stated he was foreman at No. 4 camp and had 25 Maoris under him. He recalled Baker visiting the camp the day after pay day. He had bought a bottle of whisky from Baker for £l. He had got very drunk from another bottle supplied by Baker, and when he had sobered up heard there had been trouble.

Harry Heperi, a planter, stated that with men named McCallum, Newton and others he had drunk whisky supplied by Baker. He saw the bottle given to Monu but did not see any money passed over. Charles Steven Newton, a cook employed by the company, stated that Baker came to the camp on Saturday, November 27, for orders for suits of clothes. He gave Baker an order. He was then asked if he would like a drop of whisky. He said that he didn’t mind a taste and was told there was some in his tent. After serving up the meal he went and had two or three drinks. What happened after that was npt quite clear. (Laughter.) Either the foreman or Baker asked him to purchase a bottle. He said “ Righto, what’s the damage ? ” Somebody said £l. The Magistrate : Don’t you know who you paid the £1 to ? Witness : No, I can’t swear to it. Police : Why did you tell Constable Cotter it was Baker ? Witness : Well, as far as I recollect it was Baker.

The Magistrate : What you mean is your memory has given way since that time. Perhaps you have had some more since then. (Laughter.) Witness : Oh, yes, I’ve had a few. (Laughter.) There was a' lot of drinking going on, and I was muddled at the time. I saw three bottles all together. The Magistrate : What kind of whisky was it ? Witness : Well, I won’t call it good whisky. It was what the bushmen call “ pig-iron.” (Laughter.) It went to the head pretty quick. The Magistrate : Was it “ wood ” whisky ? Witness : Eh? The Magistrate : Was it prepared from wood like American whisky, or was there a label on the bottle ? Witness : I don’t know who prepared it, or where it came from, but I know I don’t want any more of it. (Laughter.) The Magistrate : Then we’ll call it chain lightning. (Laughter.) Bufty Rangi Hamilton did not have a clear recollection of anything that happened during Baker’s visit with the exception that he himself had arrived late in camp. Despite the combined efforts of the bench, the police and the interpreter to jog his memory it remained blurred throughout. Bufty explained matters somewhat, m a different sense, when he mentioned that he found a bottle of whisky in his tent. His sombre expression then became more animated and he

verged on loquacity as his hazy memory recalled this fact. The Magistrate : What does he say? The Interpreter : He says he was in glee when he saw the whisky. (Laughter.) The Magistrate : I suppose he d'A. c ordpr a suit of clothes. (Laugher.) The Interpreter : He says he was toid >_y his friends there was a gentleman there supplying whisky galore, but he is not sure whether he paid 10s, 15s or £l. The Magistrate : Tell him the Court is not going to accept that. I don’t think he is telling the truth, and that’s straight. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and for the defence Mr. Taylor submitted that the charges of supplying must fail as no evidence had been produced to show that the district was a proclaimed area. After consulting with his client, a plea of guilty was entered in regard to two charges of selling. Counsel explained that his client had got into trouble through undue kindness of heart. It had been put to him tfhat it was “up to him to shout,” and with that idea in view he had taken the whisky to the camps just before Christmas. His client in taking it in had no idea of selling it. He had never been in trouble before, and he asked the court to take a lenient view of the two charges remaining. The magistrate in summing up stated the matter was a serious one. There had been trouble in camp over it which might have been worse. Several bottles must have been taken in, and it was apparently not good liquor. The case could not be treated as if it had just been one bottle from which the whisky had been given. He had sold the whisky, and sold it at a considerable profit. As evidence in regard to proclaimed areas had been omitted, the charges of supplying were dismissed on this technicality, while the charge of selling to Thompson was - withdrawn by the police. On the charge of selling to Newton accused was'fined £ls plus £ll 5s costs, and on that of selling to Kakuhiwa £lO plus 10s costs. Three months were allowed for payment of the first fine, and two months for the second. The charge of selling to Bufty Hamilton was dismissed owing to lack of Corroborative evidence, the magistrate remarking that though he had his own opinion on the matter he felt the police had failed to prove their case.