SUNDAY TRADING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2882, 17 October 1895, Page 4

SUNDAY TRADING.

At the Magistrate’s Court, Timaru, on Friday last, Thomas Peacock, a prohibited person, was fined £5 Is and costs for, being a prohibited person, obtaining n glass of beer from Thomas Burn, of the Empire Hotel, on Sunday, 22ud Sept.; Peter Peterson, for obtaining a glass of whisky on the same occasion, and Peter Bertie, barman, for supplying the same, were fined similar amounts. Notice of appeal was given. According to the evidence, Peacock accompanied Peters >n to the Empire to get a drink at the latter’s invitation. On leaving the hotel Peterson was met by a Mr Lister, who asked him to go to the police station with him. To this he demurred, as he said he had done nothing wrong, but ou Lister’s threatening to go to his house aud expose him he went, aud made a statement to the police. On the following day, when perfectly sober and collected, he signed a further statement, drawn up by a solicitor, to the effect thut his information to the police was incorrect, aud neither himself nor Peacock got any liquor at the Empire, on the contrary, he called for drinks but were refused by Bertie, Peacock swore that he got no drink at the time, and had not had any since he was prohibited, Bertie denied that he had supplied the drink, but their evidence differed in one or two respects. To the Magistrate, Mr Wray, Peterson affirmed that the evidence he was giving in Court was true, and that he signed the second statement only in the belief that he would not have to appear in Court. In giving judgment His Worship said that the Court had to decide as to the truth or otherwise of the story told by Peterson, and the truth or otherwise of the contradiction told by Bertie and Peacock. The theory of the defence was that Peterson made the accusation to (the police because Jie was annoyed at not being supplied with drink, and that subsequently, when he was taxed with the injustice of so doing he retracted, and that after that he again changed his mind, and held to the story which he had told them that day. That was what they had on one side. Against that they had the denials of Peacock and Bertie. In this case the Court had to take the responsibility, and rather a great responsibility, of a jury, and say which of the parties was telling the truth. The evidence of the witness Peterson was open to the remarks or criticisms which had been made upon it; that he had told two different stories ; and a man who tells contradictory stories must expect to have his word doubted. At the same time the Court had to consider all thesunounding circumstances, and in cases of this kind the Court must use a good deal of common sense; and after looking at all the surrounding circumstances as well as the evidence that had been given, he was convinced that the evidence given by Peterson in the box was correct, and that the drinks were sold to him as he stated. Such being the case, and his evidence being corroborated to a great extent by the fact that two persons saw him issuing from the hotel on the Sunday morning, he was satisfied that his story was true. He had nothing to say about Burns, as the liquor seemed to have been sold by Bertie, without Burns knowing anything abou t it; but so far as Bertie and Peacock were concerned he was- convinced they were not telling the truth. Under these circumstances he must impose a penalty under each information.—Leave to appeal was given.