SALE OF LIQUOR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 248, 19 October 1937, Page 5

SALE OF LIQUOR

OFFENCE AT KORINITI HOME BREW DISPOSED OF EVIDENCE OF SPECIAL POLICE INVESTIGATOR In the Magistrate's Court yesterday Alexander Gay appeared on two cnarges of selling beer at Koriniti without a licence to do so. The two charges, one of which related to July 18 and the other to July 19, were based largely on the evidence of a special constable, Thomas Dennis Griffiths, of Auckland, who became known to Public Works employees in camp at Koriniti as “Mr. Dennis.” Defendant was fined £5 on the second charge and ordered to pay costs on the first. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., presided. / The police case was conducted by A- Senior-Sergeant. L. R. Capp. Mr. T. W. Blennerhassett appeared for the defendant. Special Constable’s Evidence Constable Thomas Dennis Griffiths, of Auckland, stated that on June 22 he obtained employment with the Public Works Department at Koriniti. He was . working there for about a week and on June 29 was m a shingle pit with defendant. He mentioned to defendant that he wished their was a hotel handy. Accused replied: “Yes, it would be all right.” After finishing work and returning to their camps accused called witness to his camp and gave him a glass of ale. Witness worked with defendant for the remainder of the week in the shingle pit. During that time he overheard conversations to the effect that he would be making a home brew during the week-end of July 3 and 4. Witness continued to gain the confidence of defendant and on July 9 defendant, at his camp, gave witness a drink of liquor out of a tin billy. He told witness he had i just taken it from the top of a barJ rel of his home brew. Witness mentioned to defendant that it tasted like beer and asked what he put in it to colour it. He replied: “Brown sugar and treacle.” On July 16 defendant came to the tent of witness with an enamel mug of stout and asked him if he could taste tar in the liquor. Witness tasted it and replied that he could taste the tar. Defendant said he could account fcr this as it had been boiled in a tin painted on the inside with tar. Later that evening witness went to defendant’s place and had two drinks of liquor. On July 17 witness went to defendant’s place in the afternoon and a man named Cranston came into the tent. Witness had a drink with defendant and this man. Cranston and Gay just before tea came to witness’ tent with four bottles of liquor. After consuming one bottle Gay and Cranston were called to tea. They left three bottles with witness and remarked that they would be back later on. At about 8.30 p.m. Gay came in and invited witness to his tent and at the same time took the three bottles of liquor. Cranston, Gay rand witness consumed four bottles of • liquor. Witness did not see any ’ money ‘offered to defendant. At about 12.45 on July 18, Gay again called witness to his tent. On the way he asked witness to have a drink. Witness noticed a Maori whom he knew as Marshall and a man named

Flood, in the hut drinking liquor. Witness had one glass and went to his own camp. He did not see any payment offered to Gay. At 3.25 p.m. witness went to Gay’s camp and asked him if he could buy some liquor. He replied: “Yes. How many do you want?” Witness replied: “Three or four.”

He replied: “You can have six for 55.” He then gave witness six bottles of liquor. Witness then told Gay he was going to tTe Punga to see some friends. Witness took the liquor to his camp. He handed Gay a £1 note for payment. He told witness he had no change and to pay him on pay day. Wirness took the liqnor to Te Punga. On his way he hid three bottles in the bush. The other three bottles were consumed by two other men and witness. On returning to the camp he picked up the three bottles and later handed them to Constable Edwards. About 4.55 p.m. on Monday, July 19, witness again purchased from Gay three bottles of liquor at Is per bottle. He tendered Gay a 10s note for the liquor. Gay accepted payment for this liquor and that purchased the previous day and said he would give witness the change later on, which he did, namely 2s. Witness took two of the bottles to the camp of a man named Hicks. The other bottle was handed to Constable Edwards. After Hicks and witness had drank two bottles Gay came into the camp in a terrible rage and said someone had been double-cross-ing him in the camp. He also told witness that he had heard them saying that witness was in the camp to spy on the men. Mr. Blennerhasset: Apparently the story that Gay heard was correct, that you were there to spy?—Yes. I was doing my duty. Gay is married with a wife and two children?—Yes. You were befriended by him?—lt was my job to make friends with everyone. Did you see any drunkenness about?—No, I must admit I did not. It is a form of stout?—Yes. If there had been any selling by Gay you would have seen it?—Not necessarily. I did not see him accept any money. You were unhandy at your work and he showed you?—Yes. Did you see the brew made?—No. It was made in kerosene tins. If there had been any set-up brewery you would have seen it. It was brewed the same way as farmers and others make their home brew? “Yes.” Is it not a fact that you offered Gay 10s and he refused it?—No, it is not a fact. You swear you bought three bottles on the following das? —I do. Did you find Gay always a straight, decent man?—Yes. I did. I never found anything wrong with him except what I was looking for. It is your word against Gay’s, and 'he will deny that you got three bottles from him on the second occasion.

Evidence was given in support of the police case by Constable F. W. Edwards, who stated that he had made a search at Koriniti on September 4 with with Constables D. Wallace and G. Howes. In a lean-to witness found 13 empty beer bottles. In a scrub house were a number of malt extract bottles. Defendant said these were his wife’s jam bottles. Asked if the malt would be suitable for making beer, he said it would. He did not sell liquor but his mates sometimes went halves in the brew. To Mr. Blennerhassett: ’He did not find evidence of any extensive operations.

The Defence The defendant said the evidence of Constable Griffiths, up to the point of the alleged sale, was correct. Witness brewed home brew which was a form of stout and made about five gallons at a time. A friend named I Flood shared half the cost of the brew. He denied that he ever sold any of the brew. Constable Griffiths [was known in camp as “Mr. Dennis.” jHe told witness he was going to see (some friends and asked for several (bottles of the brew. He gave the • constable the beer. When the latter offered to pay he said he did not sell it. He told the constable when he was making another brew he could share the cost and also the brew. To Senior-Sergeant Capp: He often shouted for “Mr. Dennis,” but never accepted any payment. Asked what he did with all the liquor he brewed, witness replied that he only had a few brews since Christmas. Asked what it cost to make a brew, he said it cost 8s or 9s to make eight gallons. He shouted on various occasions for friends in the locality. George Edward Flood, employed on the Public Works, said he shared the cost of material with defendant in making the brews. He had never known defendant to sell any of the liquor. Witness told Gay to let “Mr. Dennis” keep his money and come in on the next brew. The magistrate said there were two charges of selling liquor without a licence to do so. The only evidence against the defendant was the evidence of the constable. He was sent to this place on special duty, and no doubt that duty was distasteful to him. The question was whether the constable was telling the truth as to the passing of the money, or the defendant. His Worship had no hesitation in accepting the constable’s evidence as correct. He was sent there on a special duty and Succeeded in purchasing some of the liquor. The only question was whether defendant’s operations were on a large scale, and he believed that the amount of brewing was not very large. No doubt the present conviction would be a warning to him not to pursue this sort of thing in future. On the first charge he was convicted and ordered to pay costs 15s and on the second he was fined £5, with costs 15s, analyst’s fee 10s 6d, and expenses of “Mr. Dennis” from Auckland, 35s 6d.