ILLICIT LIQUOR

Southland Times, Issue 20773, 14 May 1929, Page 6

ILLICIT LIQUOR

SPEY STREET CASE NICHOLS FINED TOTAL OF £2OO TWO OTHERS INVOLVED Fines totalling £2OO were imposed on Edward Nichols in the Police Court yesterday on charges that on May 11 he did unlawfully make or was unlawfully concerned in the making of spirits, and that on the same date he did have in his possession an unlicensed still, or worm, suitable for distilling spirits. The occupier of the house at which the appurtenances were discovered, Mrs Margaret O'Brien, was convicted and fined £5O, the minimum for the offence, a recommendation to be made to the Governor-General for the remission of the fine in whole or in part. The Magistrate, Mr W. H. Woodward, S.M., reserved his decision in the case of Bayne Robertson, a young man who was found on the premises at 124 Spey street when raided by the police on Saturday night. The court was crowded for the hearing of the charges. All three cases arose out of the police raid on Saturday night when plant for the distillation of whisky and a considerable amount of illicit whisky were seized. The charge against Nichols was first disposed of. He entered a plea; through his solicitor, Mr T. Meredith, of guilty to both charges. Mr H. S. Cordery, Collector of Customs, conducted the prosecution. Mr Cordery, in opening his case, said the charges were laid under section 116 of the Distillation Act sub sections A and B The Customs Department, he said, regarded cases of this kind as among the most serious which came within its jurisdiction. Duty on imported spirits was 36/- per proof gallon, and as a result of illicitly produced spirits the revenue was suffering tremendously. It was admitted in the Springhills case in 1924 that the distillation of whisky had been going on for fifty years. There had been several prosecutions of late years. In 1924 two men were convicted for offences at Springhills and fined £lOO. In 1926 three men were convicted in a smaller case in which there were mitigating circumstances, and two of those concerned were fined £5O each and the third man £l2 10/-. That particular case referred to Pukemaori. Last year again two cases came before the Court relating to Awarua Ba” and Otapiri. The fine in the former case was £lOO and costs and in the latter £5OO and costs, the maximum. Mr Cordery was instructed to press for a heavy penalty in the case before them. The points he would stress were, first, the loss of revenue to the Department; and secondly, the trouble occasioned to the police and customs. Wide publicity had been given in all the illicit still cases heard of recent years, and accused must have been conversant with all the facts. Again, too, the fact that the offences took place in the heart of the town, no great distance from the police station itself, added, he thought, to their seriousness. The outline of the case was briefly that acting on information, the police obtained a warrant and searched the premises in . Spey street. Accused had, on being questioned, first made contradictory statements, but later admitted that there was a still on the premises. A door in the wash-house was forced and two large barrels containing 72 gallons of wash were found together with an iron boiler, which had been used in distilling the spirits. He had tested the product of the still and found that it contained 94 per cent, proof spirit, which was considerably higher than the usual test which ran out at from 74 to 76 per cent. He had tested it also for the presence of fusal oil and found that it contained a certain percentage. It required, however, most delicate apparatus to detect the exact percentage and this he had been unable to procure, although he had. as stated, found it present in the spirit. Mr Cordery stressed the disastrous effect of this ingredient on the human system. The Government placed a time limit of three years on the whisky before it could be placed on the market, at the end of which time, if it was stored in small quantities, the fusol oil disappeared. It was particularly deleterious to health. He had no notion in view of these facts, but to press for the heaviest penalty. Address by Counsel. Mr Meredith, for the defence, said the was not in a position to dispute the facts regarding the presence of fusal oil. In his opinion, however, those facts would carry no weight in the fixing of the penalty. Defendant had been concerned in the manufacture of spirits for about two months, and had in that time made two or three brews. Although 72 gallons of wash were found this actually conveyed a false idea of the scope of defendant's operations as that amount of wash would produce only about six gallons of the raw material. All there was on the premises was 12 gallons of .proof spirit. Referring to the Otapiri case Mr Meredith mentioned that accused in that instance was fined £450 on one charge and £5O on the second on account of circumstances which made it most serious. Accused had admitted that he was only one of a number concerned in the manufacture of spirits and had not been prepared to divulge the names of his confederates. In passing judgment his Worship had remarked that accused could call on them for assistance. The case before them was more in keeping with the Awarua case when accused was fined £5O on each charge. A quantity of liquor was found in that instance and also a considerable quantity of material for the preparation of spirits, ashes and paraphenalia which showed that distilling had been carried on recently. His Worship also took into account the financial position of accused. Nichols, to revert to the matter before them, was only a labouring man now working casually in the grain stores and not full time at that. At one time he was working in the bush and again at the Ocean Beach freezing works. He thought he could make make money more easily by distilling spirits. Mr Meredith asked the Magistrate to take into consideration the fact that Nichols bad caused no great trouble to the police when they raided the premises at which he boarded. He admitted that he had been manufacturing whisky. He had been quite frank over it and had not shirked his responsibilities. Even the minimum penalty of £5O would be very substantia! in Nichols’s case and would be a severe lesson to him, 'and. it was certain he would never trouble the police again. Nichols had never been before the court previously for anv offence. In resnonse to a question from the Bench,' Mr Cordery said he could call evidence to show that this had been going on for two years. He added that Nichols had not assisted the police. _ f Mr Meredith questioned the staterhent that it had been going on for two years, and the matter was not pressed. The Magistrate: Have you any idea of the price charged for the whisky? Mr Meredith: Nichols has not sold any. Mr Cordery: The police say he sold it for £2 per gallon. The Magistrate: Nichols having pleaded guilty it only remains for me to fix the penalty. When a mjm sets up to defraud the Government b” this means, he is doing so after full consideration of the probable losses as well as the profits. In his position, before going info the business, he would coollv consider the penalties that others had met with before him. I think I am right, therefore, in assuming that accused knew of the penalties likelv to be imposed.. He will not have occasion to think himself hardly dealt with if the fine is fixed at £2OO, £lOO on each charge, together with costs 10/-. The anparatus, of course, automatically is forfeited. ” Owing to representations from Mr Mere»dith the terms of payment were fixed at £5O within a week and £5O per month following. ' ■ Nichola, will also report to the police at reasonable periods. Charge Against Occupier. Margaret O’Brien, occupier of the house at 124 Spey Street, was charged with occupying premises where illegal distillation

was conducted. Accused- pleaded guilty. Mr. Meredith, who appeared also for this accused, said the facts were admitted. It was, however, a question as to what interpretation his Worship placed on the particular clause in Section 116 in the Distillation Act. The point in question was whether the provision covered a third party. It would be a real hardship on accused if his Worship found it covered the case before him, as it would mean in that case a minimum fine of £5O. Mr. Meredith claimed that where the owner admitted ownership the Act became inoperative in respect to a third party. . The Magistrate: It appears that I ajn bound to fix a fine of at least £5O under this section-. I am not inclined to fine her, but I am bound to do so unless there is another solution. I find that this particular section holds. Mr. Cordery: I am not pressing for a heavy penalty in this case. I am compelled, however, to lay the information. It is impossible that operations could have been conducted in her premises without her knowledge. If it were possible I would be satisfied with a much lesser fine. The Magistrate: What is the relationship of Nichols and accused? Mr. Meredith: Nichols is boarding there. Accused is divorced and has her daughter, aged 14, living with her. She and her daughter occupy one room and Nichols another. , Mr. Meredith suggested that Mr. Cordery might withdraw the charge, but the latter said he was forced to let it stand. There was, however, a provision under the Customs Act whereby the Governor-General could be asked to remit the fine in whole or in part. The Magistrate suggested that Mr. COrdcry should make the recommendation to the Governor General, but Mr. Cordery was not agreeable, stating, however, that he would raise no objection if the Magistrate saw fit to make the recommendation. A fine of £5O was therefore fixed, payment to be suspended in the meantime pending negotiations for a remission from the Governor-General. Visitor Involved. The charge against Bayne Robertson, a young man, of being found on premises where liquor was illegally distilled was next heard, and occupied more time than the hearing of the two previous cases. Accused pleaded not quilty. Mr. Meredith said that it was admitted that at the time of the raid Robertson was on the premises. Mr. Cordery said the facts were such that he was justified in asking for an explanation why accused was on the premises. He did not have to prove guilty knowledge. It was for accused to give an explanation. Mr. Meredith said it was not a matter of providing a reasonable excuse. The Distillation Act provided a similar penalty in each of the offences, and in this case it meant that if Robertson was convicted his offence must be looked upon as equally serious as that of Nichols. Assuming that a professional man had been called in just before the raid the sub-section would apply to him. That would be creating an absurdity. It was not a question of the discretion of the collector. “I submit,” said Mr. Meredith, “that the words in the sub-section ‘ls being carried on,’ assumes guilty knowledge. Had such been the case here it would, of course, have been- Robertson’s duty to get away from the house. No one can read into the clause ‘has been carried on.’ ' It is admitted that no distillation was going on at the time of his visit. In fact the plant was dismantled. Defendant had just, finished his cup of tea, for which purpose he had been invited to the house, and was leaving to catch the train for Greenhills where he resides. I submit that before an. offence is committed distilling must be actually taking place. Otherwise it creates an absurdity. I ask your Worship to so interpret the Act.” Mr Cordery said the wording “is carried on” was indefinite and inferred that there was a carrying on of distillation on the premises. If distilling was going on six days of the week and the raid was on the seventh day, that was a place where distillation “is carried on.” If Robertson could give a reasonable excuse for his presence he would withdraw the charge. Summing up the case so far as it had gone, the Magistrate said that all the evidence before him was an admission that Robertson was on the premises. There was no evidence as to what he had gone there for. He would reserve the matter of the point of law raised by Mr Meredith and proceed with the case. Mr Meredith mentioned that he was prepared to take the matter to the higher court for interpretation. Bayne Robertson, the accused, residing at Woodend, said he was employed at the Ocean Beach Freezing Works. He knew Nichols and had known him since he (Nichols) worked at Ocean Beach. On Saturday night he met Nichols about 9.15 p.m. and Nichols asked him to his boarding house for a cup of tea to fill in time while he was waiting for the train at 10.15 p.m. Just as he finished supper the police arrived. To Mr Cordery: The last time he met Nichols with the exception of Saturday night was six months ago. He did -not notice any smell of liquor. Mr Cordery went on to question Robertson of his parents when Mr Meredith interjected and said that his father was the Robertson connected with the Awarua Bay still. Robertson to Mr Cordery: The first time the police asked for his name he jocularly gave it as Smith. Mr Cordery expressed himself as not satisfied with the explanation. Senior-Sergeant Fox said that on Saturday night a police party went to 124 Spey street. Witness noticed a distinct smell of liquor. On entering the house witness saw Robertson and Mrs O’Brien in the kitchen. He was away from the kitchen for some time going into the other rooms where the distillation apparatus was found. He asked Robertson on his return why he was on the premises and took down a short, signed statement from him. To Mr Meredith: There was nothing of an incriminating nature in the kitchen nor could anything be seen from the kitchen to lead any one to think a still was in the house. Witness would not contradict a statement that Mrs O’Brien was clearing away dishes when the police went in. Inspector Fahey corroborated the SeniorSergeant’s evidence. He added that the smell of liquor could be noticed all over the house. In his opinion anyone would have noticed it. This closed the case and the Magistrate announced that he would give his decision probably within a week.