KEEPING WHISKY FOR SALE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 145903, 9 August 1917, Page 6

KEEPING WHISKY FOR SALE.

AWAKING RESIDENT FINED - £2O. John Math-ieson was charged at -ifie Magistrate’s Court on \v edncsday a it c moon with unlawfully keeping liquor for sale at Awakino. He was represented by Mr. D. Hutchen, and pleaded not guilty. Constable M'Gregor gave evidence that on July 3 defendant received a case of whisky, and' on the occasion ox his visit to defendant’s bedroom at the boarding-house the following afternoon Mathicson informed him that there was none of the whisky left. When asked what ho had done with it he said he gave four bottles to Burring, two to Koppell, and two to Batley, because he had previously borrowed that quantity from them. He said the remaining four bottles were drunk during the night, and pointed to some empty bottles which were lying about the place. Witness later interviewed Burring, Iveppol, and Batley. To Mr. Hutchen: They made written statements- to- mo (produced). They all contradicted Math-icson’s statement that he was paying back borrowed liquor, and taid they were borrowing the liquor from defendant. Subsequently, when witness saw Hulling a second time at Awakino arid -told him he had heard ho bought the_ whisky, Hurring, who was under the influana of liquor at the time, replied: _ “Of course I did. hut you can’t prove it. This closed the case for the prosecution. , Mr. Hutchen submitted there was, no case to -answer. The charge woe one of unlawfully keeping-for sale; and the only evidence on this point was- that he gave away whisky to Ills friends,.not on circumstances that could be held to constitute a sale. There was no <mdene© ■whaitevei* of defendants having carried, out a sale of liquor. His Worship pointed out that whereas Mathicson said he gave the whisky to his friends because he owed it to them, the friends admitted borrowing it, but said Ma-thieson bad owed them nothing. Once the police established the keeping of the liquor, the onus was on the defence to prove that it was not kept for sale. Defendant then gave evidence. H 4 said ho ordered the cate of whisky m question because he thought it was “up”- to him, as a debt of concurbecause his friends had previously given him varying amounts.’ To the sub-inspector - . I admit getting six bottles of whisky on June 9, another six on the 14th. and a full cose (12 bottles) on July 3. That is £9 worth. A bottle a day ?—Yes. _ And vou ask us to believe that yon spent £9 on whisky for your friends P I do. ’ 1 Are yon in a position to afford anon an amount?—l am. _ ■ . I suggest that your-financial position is bad,- that you have been proceeded against in the court, and have -been lately doing gardening for Mr. Wolfe, proprietor of the boarding-house, in order to pay off what you owe him.—l admit the court proceedings, but the other statements are wrong. Mr. Wolfe paid me 12s a day. His Worship remarked that it was pretty expensive gardening. . - Continuing, witness, said Tie supposed that sooli'after he' SeUVthh' order to Mr. Ellis, of the Uremii Hotel,; the news would get round, and _ friends would quickly assemble. Hurring’s allegation that witness sold him liquor was untrue. Regarding the six bottles he got on June 9, he could have drunk all this himself between the 9th and the 14th without the slightest trouble, but there was a friend working with him on a-wet contract. The whisky ordered on the 14th (six bottles) was got for the committee organising a concert for. the Red Cross funds. - It-was used to stimulate the performers, and witness would take all responsibility for it. In connection with the 13 bottles ordered on July 3, lie divided the whisky between Hurring, Keppell, and Batley, and by so doing-discharged hia debt of honour. His Worship said defendant had failed to- satisfy him that he did net keep the whisky for sale. His evidence waa most contradictory, and was further contradicted by Hurring, Keppel, and Batley. He could not credit that a man of defendant’s position could afford to pay £4 10s for a- case of. whisky. He could not accept such a, statement. There must he a conviction, and re would be fined £2O. It seemed almost impossible to .put down the illegal Eroding of liquor in the district. Costs miounted to £1 11s.