SLY-GROG CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 November 1917, Page 7

SLY-GROG CASES.

IN THE MOKAU DISTRICT. Arthur Joseph Cavanagh, who was convicted and fined £lO and costs on Octo»er 10, 1917, on a charge of having kept : liquor for sale in the no-license district ot Mokau, was again charged with two t further offences of a similar nature at the New Plymouth Court vesterday Constable McGregor, Mokau, said that ol Jvovember 0 a parcel arrived by mail coach addressed to A. J. Cavanagh and on the tollowing night he interviewed defendant, who admitted receiving the liquor, and stated that he had drunk some and given the remainder away. Re produced one bottle, and took witness to a room where three empty bottles Trere found. Defendant said that these •a-ere part of the consignment, but witness was certain that one of them was not as he had taken the precaution to mark the six bottles before Cavanagh received them. One bottle had no mark «>n it. A marked bottle was found in another room, and one had previously been taken from North, thus Ave wer* seconnted for. Defendant was sober, although from his statements he had been drinking very heavily, not only whisky but also rum, which had been brought to M"kau by Neil Sorenson. Neil Sorenson deposed as to takin» charge of six bottles of whisky which arrived addressed to Cavanagh nn Nov. rafter 6. Defendant had brought n bottle of mm to Mokau on his return from New Plymouth on November 5. and witness had "helped" him to drink it. He had not seen Cavanagh drunk since Ms return from New Plymouth. James Northe, carpenter. Mokau, said ■that he had also partaken of the bottle of rum which Sorenson brought from New Plymouth. He obtained a bottle of whiskey from Cavanagh purelv as a loan.

SubTnspector Hutton: Whv did vou make a statement to Constable McGregor that you paid Caranagh 15s for the whiskey?

Constable McGregor concocted that statement and I signed it on condition that I was to get back my bottle which he took from me.

His Worship': Do you expect ms to believe that statement?

Witness: Well, I am here to tell the truth.

Sub-Inspector Hntton asked leave te\ treat witness as hostile, which was granted.

•Constable McGregor, re-called to the witness box, swore that the statement was purely voluntary, and he had used no unfair means. Witness had seen Northo on Thursday morning in the Criterion Hotel, and Northe had then told him that lie wr.s going back on Witness and his statement, as it would •bo impossible for him to live in Mokau if lie played anv part in proving a conviction against Cavanagh. A penalty of three months' hard labor without the option of a fine was imposed.

UAZ...:SP" -;,«. ; - IGAIN CHARGED.

Margaret 'Box, against whom there were six previous convictions, was charged with havin? kept whiskey for sale on August 2 and November 7, and also with felling liquor to two persons on August 29 in the no-license district of Mokau. Mr. Quilliam appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty. Sarah Jnnsen, a divorced woman, gnv» evidence that she had worked in defendant's boarding-house. On August 29 she obtained a botilc of whisky from defendant which she handed to a Thomas Kendall to give to her divorced husband, who was recovering from an accident. The bottle was given on ',he understanding that it would bo returned. Witness subsequently asked defendant if she would give Kendall a bottle of whiskey. Defendant took a bottle from under a cupboard, and said that Kendal! could have it for 15s.

Witness later offered to return the bottle she hi\d borrowed from defendant, but defendant refused to accept a bottle in return, and aaid she would have to pay for it.

Sub-Tnspector Hutton: How do you know that the bottle given Kendall contained whiskey?

Witness: Because he opened it in my presence, and I had a drink from it, Witness went on to say that defendant received five bottles from Neil Sorenson out of the six he received by mail coach. Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, witness stated that she received 30s a week from defendant.

Mr. Quilliam: Why do you say that when you only got '2ss? 'i have* a receipt for your wages here (produced) which shows that you received 25s and bears your signature. The tale of tho stopping of 15s out of your month's wages is untrue. Apparently you want to say all you can against Mrs. Box and everything possible for yaurself. You have yourself been convicted of sly gro* selling, have you not?

Witness: I have already paid the penalty, and that ha"s no bearing on the case.

Mr. Quilliam: Have you ever stolen anything from Mrs. Box or been in a state of hopeless drunkenness while employed by her?

Witness: I object to answer. Mr. Quilliam: Hid you not threaten tn go to the police and give information about the sale of the bottle to you unless Mrs. Box' allowed you the 15s you wanted?

Witness: Certainly I did. I told the truth.

1 ileria Duncan, a pianist, said she *:■ employed by Mm. Box a-; cook from October 4 to November 12 and had resided at the boarding house for some lime previously. She saw Kendall with a bottle of whiskey on August 29 ana believed that he obtained it from the defendant. Between September 20 and 28 the defendant gave her the keys to get two bottles of whiskey from a room at the hack of the kitchen for David McLaren, who offered to pay witness for it then and there.

Sub-Inspector Hutton: Have you seen any liquor in quantity at Mokau? _ Witness: I think everybody who ha» lived in Mokau has seen it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam. witness said that she 'had gone to Mokau for a holiday while waiting an engagement.

Mr. Quilliam: You are not above taking a little whiskey yourself? Witness: I do not drink whiskey. Mr. Quilliam: What is your, cho'iee! Witness: That is my business. Mr Quilliam: I am'afraid it will be your ruin if you go on. To the Magistrate: What I have said is true. Mr. Quilliam: We have quite enough of this "truth." Neil Sorenson, who gave evidence in the previous case, said he had received eight bottles of whiskey by the mail coach. The liquor was addressed to him and was intended for him, though he had not written out the order :>s he wrote a poor hand. Mrs. Box made out the order for him and he signed it. The liquor was certainly for him, but defendant

would npt allow him to pay fot.it,'.as 6he said his wages were too small.' He took the whiskey from the coach and asked defendant to take charge of the liquor for him as he considered it unsafe to keep it in his room. Defendant had given him a nip or so a day as long as the liquor lasted. To Mr. Quilliam: I received a bottle on one occasion.

Thomas Kendall said he had received a bottle of whiskey on August 29 purely as a gift. Defendant would not allow him cither .to pay for the bottle or % to make a return. He had never received liquor from defendant before. On the date in' question he was slightly the worse for liquor, hut. he did not think it probable that he had asked Mrs. Jensen to get a second bottle for him. To Mr. Quilliam: I was recovering from a'heavy drinking bout. Mr. Quilliam: I understand that In Mokau the general procedure is to take a hair of the dog that bit you. Mrs. Box, you say, left a bottle out of which you were to take what you required and return the bottle. Witness: That is so.

Mr. Quilliam: But instead of doing that you and a friend very greedily finished the lot. • To the Magistrate: That was the only occasion on which lie had received whiskey from Mrs. Box.

. Constable McGregor said that when he Visited the defendant's boarding-house he found a man drunk in one of tRe bedrooms, and when Mrs. Box appeared she denied supplying the man with liquor and all knowledge as to who did so. She admitted, however, the possession of a bottle of whiskey and a bottle of beer, which, according to her statement, was part of a consignment of three bottles of whiskey and one dozen of beer she had received three weeks previously. When asked what she had done with the liquor defendant said that she had drunk it herself. She refused to aeamnpany witness in his search through the house, and while he was engaged in searching a recess under the stairs defendant hurried from, her room and made first for the kitchen, and, when followed, hurried outside and locked herself ill an outhouse. Some little time later she came indoors and his search was continued. In the recess were found a sugar bag addressed to Sorenson containing packing such as would be used for glassware and also an empty whiskey case addressed to P. Rattenbury. When asked how the packages came there defendant said she must have put them there while tidying up the house. To Mr. Quilriam. J All I found was a bottle of whiskey and a bottle of beer. Mr. Quilliam: Then what Mrs. Box told you was true.

Witness admitted that the whiskey case addressed to Rattenbury might have been there for months. Counsel for defence then dealt with Ibe evidence called by the prosecution, and pointed out that the evidence given as to the separate charges did not properly dovetail. The prosecution had to depend on very shaky reeds, and His Worship would recognise that no person should be convicted on the evidence given by one of the women who was actuated by the most spiteful motives. The wages receipt hook showed that this woman received 25s instead of 30s ana that difference -,'ould approximately account for the 15s in a month. That witness, too, had a grudge against Mrs. Box, who had asked her to leave the boarding house and refused to take her back on account of happenings in the house. Counsel for the defence refcred to the alleged sale of liquor to Kendall, and said his Worship would agree that the trmnjaction was purely an act of good nature, which did not come within the Act. Again, Constable McGregor's search in November had no bearing on Hie alleged sales to Kendall and Janson on August 29. The charge of keeping liquor for sale should be dismissed if it was shown that the amounts were not unreasonable for private consumption.

Mrs Box said that Kendall had come to the boarding-house on August 28, when he was suffering from excess of drink, and was really ill. He asked for drink several times, and in the end she placed a bottle of whiskey in his room and told him to return what he did not use. Subsequently Kendall came to her and said that he and Jansen, who had fallen off his horse, had finished the lot. Witness was annoyed, but refused either to aceept payment or a return.

Mrs. Jansen received 25s a week, and v.'itness had never agreed, to give her .10s. The entry in reference to Mrs. Jansen's wages was made when she was paid offt nnd no mention of any deduction was made at that time. --Witness had been ill as the result of overwork in the bon.rding-hoU9C. and kept alcohol in the house with which to brace herself up. On October 15 Mrs. Jansen came tn licr in an intoxicated condition and spook about a deduction said to have bpen made in her wages when she was paid oft'. That was the first defendant had heard >f the matter. Mrs. Jansen bad threatened her with exposure, but she had no reason to be afraid, and told .her to do her worst. In answer to Sub-Inspector Hutton defendant admitted running away from Constable McCregor, and explained that after he had searched her room she remembered that, there was a little whiskey in a ginger ale bottle She was very excited and upset and did not want the. constable to think she had told an untruth. Defendant explained ih- finding of the empty case addressed t „ Rattenbury by saying that he left the case at. ter house and took home a few bottles at a time, as it was not possible, for him to carry the whole ease on horseback. Defendant repeated that Miss Duncan Was not in the kitchen when Mrs. Juns«n cams to her about the deduction of 15s. She had paid for the whiskey received by Sorenson because she paid him a very lo\f wage. To Sift-Inspector Hutton t There was no on* present when the question of the deduction of 15s was discussed, except herself and Mrs. Jansen.

Miss Duncan, recalled, said she had overheard the discussion from her own room, hut she could not hear everything that was said. She certainly heard Mrs. Tansen sav that defendant should not have deducted ISs from her wages, as she was willing to return the bottle.

Constable McGregor, recalled, gave evidence that Kendall was sober on the evening and the day following the alleged sale. _

Hi« Worship said the evidence given by Mrs. Innscn must he looked on with. a great deal of suspicion, as she hnd n. grievance against the defendant, which, had colored her evidence materially. The sale of liquor to Mrs. .Tansen was not proved, hut tho sale to Kendall was on a different footing. Tlw defendant admitted giving him a bottle instead of a nip. and stated that she had done so us she was busv ehurninrr and could not nfTord time to look for a cork-screw. Tie did not think that a woman who was in the habit of keeping drink in the hous o would have any difficulty in lavlnr- her hands on !> cork-screw. As onTv three bottles of Hnuor were found in defendant"* premises the charges r»

keeping liquor for mlo would be dis'missed, but oh one charge of selling liquor defendant would be lined £lO. costs £lO Ids 4d. Six weeks' time was .given in which to pay the amount.