PROHIBITED LIQUOR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9934, 24 August 1910, Page 3

PROHIBITED LIQUOR.

A BUNCH OF BROKEN ORDERS.

SALUTARY PUNISHMENTS

At the Lvtteltoiv Magistrate's Court this morning Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., in dealing with eight charges against seven men of "procuring liquor during the currency of prohibition orders, expressed great surprise at the number of cases, and said there seemed to be more cases of the kind in Lyttelton, in proportion to tho population, than in any other place he knew of. Sergeant Ryan said that, some prohibited men in JLyttelton made a boast of the fact that they were able to procure liquor. Mr Bishop said that it was simply disgraceful that in this locality prohibition orders were treated with such contempt. H© meant to have the orders obeyed, or ho would know the reason why. He intended to make the fines as heavy as he could, and ho would fine the men who committed these breaches anything up to the maximum' penalty for their repeated offences, and they would find it a " mighty expensive game." Ben Whitham, Richard Kildare (a Maori) and Ilarry Thomas Mitchell (a youth) were each lined 10s, in default 'forty-eight hours' imprisonment for breaches of their orders. Lawrence Hanrattv, who did not appear, was fined • 40s, in default one month's imprisonment, this being his third offence. Henry Bamford, against whom there was a previous conviction, was fined 20s, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. Samuel Alexander Hughes was fined 40s, in default one month's imprisonment, for a breach of a prohibition order on August 20. There were two previous convictions against accused, who was warned that if he came up again he would be fined the maximum penalty. William Edward Marshall was charged with having procured liquor on two occasions. He pleaded guilty, and was fined 40s, in default one month's imorisonment, on each charge. He asked for time to pay tho fines, but was told that no time would be allowed. George Nelson was charged that, knowing Samuel Alexander Hughes to be a prohibited person, ho did assist him to obtain liquor. Constable Richardson stated that at 1.2.45 a.m. on August 20 ho had heard singing on board the launch Canterbury. On going aboard, he had seen Nelson, the master of the vessel, sitting in the cabin with three prohibited men, Hughes, Marshall and Bamford. Another man was lying there asleep. Hughes, who had a bottle of whisky and u mug. gave each of the other men a. nip." Bamford was the worse for liquor. Nelson said he was responsible for the others "oeing there. Constable Fitzgerald stated that Nelson admitted to him later, on board the launch., that he knew the men wore prohibited.

His Worship said it was quite clear that accused had been a party to the drinking. He had said over and over again that the man who assisted a prohibited person to get liquor was much worse than the prohibited man, who was generally the victim of his weakness. Addressing accused, his Worship said: " A man in your position is beneath contempt. You are lined £5. or one month's imprisonment."