SLY-GROG SELLING.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11752, 9 December 1916, Page 5

SLY-GROG SELLING.

A FINE OF C2l) AND COSTS,

At the Masterton -Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr W. Kerr, S.M., a married man, named John Sandiford, was charged with selling liquor in the no-license district of Masterton, and also with a breach of the War Regulations Act by refusing to allow the police to search his premises when requested to do bo. iMr W. Noble, who appeared for defendant, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Frederick George Thompson, a driver in the employ of B. Culloty, road contr'actor, stated that on the even? ing 'of November 29th Sandiford met him in tho street and asked,him if he wanted to purchase a bottle of whisky. Witness .said he coud do witli\ one, but as the "Jolms" were about it was arranged they should meet in a lane near Jones' stables: Witness paid 12s (kl for the whisky. Next morning witness drove to Saniford's houso at Lansdowno and purchased another bottle, i'Ar whicli he paid 12s 6d. This was opened in'the kitchen. John Savage later came in, and tha throe had several rounds from the bottle. Sandiford offered witness another bottle for Bs, which ho said ho would take. Whon it was being put into the gig it accidentally got broken and Sand ; ford demanded 12s 6d in payment for it. This he refused t> give, and defendant said he would take charge of the" gig and horso until the amount was paid, and took hold of the animal's head. Witness then left and rang up the police. On the arrival of Constable Dunphy tlK' horse was found locked up. In answer to Mr Noble, Thompson said he had not seen Mrs Sandiford, and denied using abusive language. Constable Dunphy stated in reply to a telephone ring he and Constable Phillips proceeded to Lansdowne. Thoy ntct Thompson on tlie road, and lie complained that Sandiford had taken his horse and refused to give it up because he (Thompson) had refused to pay 12s fid for a bottle of whisky. Sandiford, when approached, said, "Thompson is a dirty Ifar, and so are you. He insulted nay wife and that is why 1 locked up his horse." Witness then proceeded to search the house, under Section 14 of the War Regulations Act, but found no liquor. Corroborative.evidence was given by Constable Phillips/ > John Sandiford, horse trainer, stated that on the night of November 29th' he went to. bed at 7. o'clock, and consequently cotild not have sol<|' the whisky, as alleged, tfr Thompson. Thompson called at his house- on the SOth to eriquiries as to-the pros- ; pects of a. certain horse fre trained at,: . ' the Woodville races. Thompson produced a bottle of whisky, which he said he had purchased at Carterton. John Savage entered the house, !'j|d all three had a nip. Tho •ji&yifrsation in the house turned to ®pR-'#av, and Thompson said: "I hop<£tiie Kaiser rules New Zealand."' Savage became angry at this remark. became abusive, and witness tequested h.im to leave the house. The "three of them later went to Savage's place, taking with them what was left in the whisky bottle. On. their return Thompson again usee! filthy \ language in the presence of Mrs Sandiford. Witness again ordered Thompson riff the premises and iold n:m to take his horse and trap away. Thompson left,, and as he did not take the horse he (witness) took it out of the trap and placed it'in tho stable. He swore absolutely that he sold no liquor to Thompson. John Savage, farmer, stated that „ vvhen he entered Sandiford's was; half a bottle, of whisky on the table. Thompson, who pressed him ' to have a drink, said ho had procured it at Carterton. Thompson, later said, "I defy them Jto send me to the fr6htP& - and I hope to God the KaisCr •* $iH; AA win. ,s He replied "It s will be* the' price of you to go and work for tho Kaiser at 4-|d per day." Ethel M. Sandiford, wife of defendant, and John Stephens, a boarder, swore that Sandiford was in bed at 7 o'clock on tlie night of November •»th.

Thompson, oil being recalled, denied using any disloyal statements. He had been through the Boer war, and had been rejected on three occasions during the past two years? His Worship summed up strongly against defendant, and imposed of £2O, with' costs amounting to £2 19s, with an alternative ; of two> months' imprisonment. A month was given in which to pay the fine'; provided defendant reported himself three times a week' to the nolice. On the other charge defendant was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence- when called upon.