ILLICIT WHISKY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 299, 19 December 1933, Page 5

ILLICIT WHISKY

SUCCESSFUL RAID I HIDDEN STILL ON FARM ■’CHRISTMAS BREW” FOUND. MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED. Tn imposing the maximum penalty of £5OO on a Ferndale farmer, charged in the Gore Police Court last week with unlawfully distilling spirits and being in possession of a still, the magistrate, Mr. H. I. Dixon, said he could not see any mitigating circumstances. The defendant, James Quirk, for whom Mr. Bannerman appeared,, pleaded guilty. The case resulted from a week end raid by the police and Mr H. 8. Cordery, collector of customs. Outlining the facts, Mr. Cordery said that information in the possesion of the authorities showed that whisky had been distilled on a large scale for the past two years. What was known as “Hokonui” whisky could be distinguished from imported, and it was also possible to tell from what district it came. For some time there had been considerable concern over the great quantities of “Hokonui” whisky coming from one particular still in the Ferndale district. The problem was to select a suitable date for a raid. After months of inquiry Sunday was selected and the telephone service was disconnected on that day, to prevent any warning being given. Track Across Paddock. Accompanied by Detective-Sergeant Hewitt, Detective Lean and Constable Hill, Mr. Cordery said he arrived at defendant’s farm early on Sunday morning and a visit was immediately made to the house. Defendant denied that there could be any plant on his farm without his knowledge. A. search for a still was then commenced. The party came to a ploughed paddock, which had a broad vehicle track running to a shed where straw was stacked. From this point the party followed a foot track to a patch of tussock flanked on each side by straw. The straw was moved, continued Mr. Cordery, and underneath, lying among the tussock, were one barrel of 108 gallons capacity and three of 36 gallons capacity each, all about five-eighths full, a total quantity of about 180 gallons. When straw was removed from a second heap a trench 3ft. deep, 2ft. 6in. wide and 12ft. long—obviously a storehouse —was found. Another track led to a wash and In between was a fireplace. Near by were seven empty barrels, clean and ready for use, two kegs and three tins of malt extract. The still consisted of a double copper, which formed the body of the still, a still head, worm and a cooler. Newspapers, kerosene, wood and coal found were obviously used for firing. Quality of Whisky. The defendant admitted the farm belonged to him, but refused to make a statement, said Mr. Cordcry. IDcfcndant had denied having knowledge that there was a still on his farm, but no farmer could see broad tracks going across a paddock without knowing the reason. The straw was so old that it must have been there for some time, suggesting that a considerable amount of work Lad teen done at the still. Referring to the whisky, Air. Ctfr<iery said it was poisonous, being full of fusel oil, which could not be removed owing to lack of appliances. Illicit distilling also occasioned unfair competition and serious loss of revenue to the Customs Department. The 180 gallons of wash found would make between 40 and 50 gallons of whisky, so that the loss of revenue would be about £lOO This whisky was sold at Between 20s and 30s a gallon. Therefore the profits were heavy indeed. Judging from the appearance of the still and the size of the casks it was not a one-man job, said Air. Cordery. The cask of 108 gallons capacity could not be bundled by one man. In the present case Mr. Cordery asked for the maximum penalty. This was the largest still and plant discovered and it had been found after nine years of warning of what would happen. This was the 13th. prosecution in nine years. “A Christmas Brew.” Air. Bannerman said that Quirk was a farmer and was not in a particularly good position. It was mainly through the slump that he had turned to distilling whisky. The Magistrate: Do you suggest that people drink more in a slump? Air. Bannerman: This was to have been a Christmas brew. Continuing, counsel said the defendant could not make ends meet on his farm and took to brewing to secure money. The allegations that there had been heavy distilling were not true. The plant was installed at the beginning of this year, the first brew was not a success, and the only brew which had been sent out was in May, so that all the Customs Department had lost was what would have been the revenue on the May brew. Defendant was well known and highly respected and those who knew him were amazed to hear he was concerned in such a business. Actually there was not a great deal in “Hokonui” whisky. The magistrate said that defendant siould not plead that he had not received sufficient warning. There had been numerous cases which had been given wide publicity and the nature of the penalty was well known. He had only the defendant’s word that a small quantity of whisky had been manufactured, but this did not tally with the position as described by the customs officer. Air. Dixon said he had no doubt that si considerable quantity had been distilled from which the profits must have been large. Amazement of Neighbours. Persons would not undertake this type of business unless the profits were large, continued the magistrate. The still had been skilfully hidden, indicating that defendant was well aware of the danger of having it on his property, and the nature of the penalty. It seemed that defendant had partners and if so they should come to his assistance and pay the penalty Apart from this the danger to health from this whisky had to be considered, while the loss of revenue to the Government was a serious matter. Defendant was fined £5OO and costs totalling £4 13s. Air. Bannerman applied for time in which to pay. “Frankly, I do not see how defendant can pay the fine, in view of his position,” he said. The police stated that the defendant bore a good character. His neighbours wen amazed to hear that he bad been

carrying on such a business. The police did not oppose, lime being granted. The magistrate allowed two months in which to pay. and also granted defendant the right to apply at the end of that period for a further extension.