CASK OF WINE STOLEN

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1932, Page 8

CASK OF WINE STOLEN

THEFT FROM MIDHIRST PARTY. SEVEN MEN CHARGED AT COURT. When the friends of Gordon Jacobsen, Midhirst, tendered him a “tin-can-ning” at his home on June 21 beer was provided for the guests, but some of them were not satisfied with that beverage and a cask of blackberry wine standing in the porch was removed. The cask was taken to a nearby paddock and later by car to a dance at Wharehuia, where its consumption led up to a fight. It also led up to the appearance at the Stratford Court yesterday of seven men, who were charged with the theft of the cask of wine, valued at £B, and two enamel billies. All but one were convicted by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., admitted to 12 months’ probation, prohibited from liquor for one year and prohibited from attending dances for one year. They were ordered to make restitution.

John E. Strong, labourer, Midhirst, Edward Mason, farm hand, Stratford, Harry Hun wick, farm hand, Waipuku, William C. Hunwick, farmer, Waipuku, and Hugh McGrath, jockey, Stratford, were all charged with stealing the cask of wine, the property of Gordon H. Jacobsen. William R. Mason, farmer, Stratford, and Larney P. O’Keefe, labourer, Midhirst, were each charged with the theft of the wine and with stealing two billies valued at 4s and 2s 9d respectively. All pleaded not guilty, but it was only W. R. Mason who was not convicted. Sergeant Power said a summons against Lionel Copestake, recently a labourer of Stratford, had not yet been served.

■Sergeant Power eaid that liquor was provided at the house that night, though there was no evidence of excess. AH the defendants were present, and at one period they were all in the porch at the back where the cask of wine was. The cask was taken from the house and broached along the road, later to be put into W. Hunwick’s car and taken to Wharehuia, where a dance was in progress. The wine was drunk there and bedlam ensued. There was a fight and W. Alason knocked Copestake out. Some of tne party had to be carried home.

OUTLINE OF THE THEFT. ' The charges against Hunwick Bros, and AlcGrath were taken first as the other four had counsel. Gordon Jacobsen, an employee of the Midhirst Dairy Company, said that during the evening the three defendants were refused wine by his wife. At about 10 p.m. he found that the cask of wine was missing, and the next he saw of it was when he found it on the side of the road outside his house next morning. Two billies also disappeared with the wine, but after the police began to inquire into the matter the billies were placed on the verandah one night, • Constable W. Hughes said Hunwick Bros, and McGrath had made statements. W. Hunwick’s statement admitted that the party in the porch agreed to take the wine and that later the whole party went to Wharehuia. Neither Hunwick had anything to say. McGrath denied W- Hunwick’s statement that he was present when the plan to steal the wine was made in the porch and said that he was not waiting for Hunwick on the road. “Well, I propose to convict you three,” Mr. Tate said. Called again, Jacobsen said that not one man in the house was drunk. SALES OF WINE DISCLOSED. To counsel, witness said he an<L his wife made the wine and he considered the wine was worth £B. It was sold in the district at about 3s 6d a bottle. Counsel: That’s illegal. You don’t' mean to say that people in Midhirst' are carrying on contraband trade? Witness; They sell it about. Jacob Jacobsen, who was at the party, saw two men carrying something that looked like a demijohn away from' the house. He told his sou and they found the cask had been taken. By that time the men had gone. There were many uninvited guests present. Henry Hunwick stated that in the porch it was suggested that the cask be removed and the other four defendants were present. He did not know if Copestake was with the party then. Witness and, he thought, W. R.' Mason helped and carried the cask to the end of the house, where it was handed to W. Hunwick. He and Alason returned to the house and the whole party left then and went along the road to where the cask was. As far as he could remember O’Keefe and W. Mason had the enamel billies. The cask was tapped and then put into W. Hunwick’s car, after which the party left for Wharehuia. There the wine was handed round in the billies. All the members of the party were drinking. The dance was closed down and somebody took the cask from W. Hunwick’s car and placed it in W. Mason’s car.

Counsel said E. Mason, O’Keefe and Strong would admit that they drank the wine, but they had no part in the planning of the theft or the stealing of the wine. What happened was that the news of drink being available down the road spread through the house and

gradually the men went along to the paddock. W. R. Mason would flatly deny having been implicated in the theft or having had any wine. Mason had his wife with him, and when they left home they were going to Wharehuia. On the way he called at Jacobsen’s house and he was dancing in the kitchen. On leaving there he stopped at Jones’ place to pick up his wife, whom he had dropped there while he went to Jacobsen’s house. Jones’ place was near the paddock where the cask was and O’Keefe, who could not get into Hunwick’s car, secured a ride to Wharehuia with Mason, who spent the night dancing in the hall. He did not have any of the wine there and it was when he left the hall to go home that Copestake, who was drunk, started to quarrel with him and Mason knocked him out.

Strong said he met the Hunwicks and went with them to Jacobsen’s. There were about 40 men, besides the women, present. He did not know of the proposed theft nor did he have any part in the theft, but he was given a drink of wine at the house. Then he heard that the cask had been stolen and was on its way to Wharehuia. He did not like to give his friends away but at the same time he thought it was “over the odds” for them to take the cask. He decided to follow the cask in order to look after it and joined the party in Hunwick’s car as it was leaving for Wharehuia. There the wine was handed round freely and he had some drinks. He did not see W. Mason liave any wine at any time. After the dance witness was concerned about the safety of the cask and as W. Alason would pass Jacobsen’s on his way home witness suggested that Alason take it. That was done, but he did not know who placed the cask in Mason’s car. A denial that he was in any way involved in the theft was given by O’Keefe, who said that the first he knew of the theft was when he went to look for Mason’s car. He found that the cask was in the paddock and he went back to the house and got an enamel billy, which he filled from the cask. Then he met Mason and went with him to Wharehuia, taking the billy of wine with him. Mason did not know he had the wine in the car. Edward Alason stated that it was about half an hour after the theft that he heard the cask was in the paddock and he followed Strong when he said ‘‘l’m going to look after the cask.” He did not see his brother have any drink, but he had some himself at Wharehuia. Counsel said there was no theft in connection with the billies, which were returned, and while all but 'Strong were guilty of having had some of the wine they were not guilty of the theft. There was no evidence against W.’ R. Alason and counsel did not intend to call him.

The magistrate said the Hunwicks seemed to be the prime movers in the theft, for which he could see no excuse or explanation unless they were all more or less drunk. He did not know whether a “tin-canning” was regarded by young married couples as an indignity or a compliment, but it seemed such functions were good things to keep away from, for they had undesirable features. A large number of people gathered at the’party solely to drink liquor, and the result was that a cask of wine was stolen. The Hunwicks were certainly guilty; AlcGrath received the wine; O’Keefe stole a billy to consume stolen wine; Strong evidently had some respect for the cask, but he also drank the wine, and E. Mason drank the wine. There was no evidence against W. R. Mason.

“Can you tell me anything about these men?” Mr. Tate asked Sergeant Power.

The sergeant said that Strong had not come under his notice before and was a decent kind of man. AlcGrath was a young and foolish lad, w’ho joined in “all the fun that is going.” He had been making a nuisance of himself at dances. E. Mason was very troublesome as could bo seen from his list, and the Hunwicks w’ere a more or less feather-brained type that ran .round to dances. There was nothing known against their honesty. “I would like to get this into your minds if I could,” Mr. Tate said. “This offence is punishable by imprisonment with hard labour. However, I don’t intend to send you to prison. I propose to treat you all alike, though I regard the Hunwicks as the worst. You will be admitted to probation for a year, you will have to take out prohibition orders for that time, and you will not be permitted to attend dances. You will have to restore the £8 and pay witnesses’ expenses 18s. I do not consider £8 to be too much for the value of the wine. The charge against W. R. Mason will be dismissed.”