SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 43, Issue 133045, 13 September 1917, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON SITTINCJS.

(Before ITis Honour the Chief Justice,

Sir Eobcrt .Stout.)

The Masterton sittings of the Sup reme Court were continued this morning.

THOMPSON v. CONSTABLE

MURRAY

This was an appeal by a man named Thompson, motor proprietor, of Grcytown, who had been convicted and lined 40s by M r L. 0. Ueid, S.M., of receiving benzine which liad been stolen from ALr \Y. Kayncr, of Tara.tahi, by a man named liilooley. The benzine, had been stedenaiid then sold by Uilooley to a. man named .Hall, who iv turn placed the stolen benzine in a shed oAvned by appellant Thompson.

Sir John Find lay (with Mr Pragnell) appeared for appellant, and -Mr A. .K. Bunny for the Crown.

Sir John Findlny maintained that Thompson did not know the benzine was stolen when he lirst received it. As soon as Thompson thought it over he went to Hall next morning and said, ''Look here, I don't like the look of this; you take that benzine away and give me my money back. , ' The Magistrate held that this act of Thompson's was evidence of his guilt, but Sir John pjndlay held that, this showed Thompson's innocence, and that the Magistrate had drawn a wrong inference from the action. On these grounds he claimed that, the Magistrate's conviction could not stand.

]\lr Himny said the evidence showed that Thompson went in a motor car with (iilooloy and Hall to Rayner's place to get the benine. Thompson later purchased four cases of the benzine from Hall at il'2, which was about halfprice. When Thompson realised he had put his "head into a noose , '' he went to Hall and told him to tako his benzine and give him his money back. Thompson had gone bail for Hali twice when the latter was arrested in connection with the theft of the benzine, and he had not said one word to the police about his connection with the affair. This action on Thompson's part, and all the surrounding circumstances, pointed to Thompson's guilt, and Mr Bunny maintained that the Magistrate's decision must stand. The Magistrate had come to the conclusion that Gilooley, Hall and Thompson had all had a, guilty connection with the benzine affair.

Sir John said he had three witnesses who would say that the Magistrate, in giving his decision, had said: '' 1 am satisfied that Thompson did not act designedly." Sir John asked His Honour to refer the matter to the Magistrate.

His Honour said he Avould do so. He would reserve his judgment.

CIIKLSTKNSOX v. SEKGKAXT MILLER,

This was an appeal by Frank Christeiisou, fanner, of Ohiiu, who was licensee of the Tauhereiiikau Hotel in lOlb", against a decision of the Magistrate, in which Christenson was convicted of having brandy in :i Heuncssy bottle i'or tin- purpose of sale, which was not Hcnnessv's brandy.

Mr O. R. Beere, Wellington, appeared i'or appellant, and Mr Bunny for respondent.

Mr Beiwe said that when ■Christonson took the Tauliereuikau Hotel he found that one bar was not sutlicienS to cope with trade on r.'U't , days and other special occasions. He therefore fitted up a. back room as an emergency bar, and ■when it was not being used he used it as a storeroom. Jle had in this back room a glass barrel containing French brandy. The tap was leaking and the brandy was spilling. He went into the yard and got some bottles to catch the brandy which was running away. The bottle had a Hennessy label on it, which he did not destroy. He had no intention of selling the brandy.

Mr Bunny (producing a bottle): This is the Hennessy bottle, and this is the bottle from -which Sergeant Miller bought the brandy.

Mr Beere maintained that although the brandy had been put into a Hennessy bottle, it was not intended to be sold as Hennessy brandy. It 'was only placed in the bottle temporarily. He would bring evidence additional to that given in the Magistrate's Court to show that the brandy was not sold as Hennessy's brandy, and that the Sergeant was distinctly told that it was not lleimessy"s brandy.

Sergeant Miller gave evidence that in July, HUH, he went to the Tauhercnikau Hotel to get samples of liquor for testing. Witness explained his business to Christeuson, and then went into the back bar, which was stocked with liquor on the shelves. Witness bought three samples from different bottles. Witness saw the Hennessy bottle and asked the licensee Avhat was in it. The licensee said, "French brandy." Witness bought a sample from the bottle and paid for it. Witness asked Christenson why he had put draught brandy into a Hennessy bottle, and Christenson said a decanter had been broken. They usually sold draught brandy out of decanters. There were also four other bottles on the shelf marked Hennessy's, containing brandy that was not Hennessy'iS. Christenson said they were all for sale, but that if he sold a bottle he would scratch out the Hennessy label.

Frank Christenson, in evidence, explained that tho tap on the brandy urn was leaking, and he filled the contents out into bottles. He did not sell the H-andy from these bottles, but transferred it to the decanters for sale. There was nobody except the constable who got brandy from the Hennessy bottle. Witness said he told the sergeant the bottles contained French brandy, and was not for sale.

To Mr Beere: If anyone had asked for Hennessy's brandy he would have toW them it was not Hennessy's brandy in the bottle.

Constable McLeod, of Featherston x who accompanied Sergeant Miller when he obtained, the samples of brandy, corroborated the Sergeant's evidence. The back bar, from which' the brandy was

obtained, was generally kept open

His Honour said the evidence was quite clear. If the brandy was there for the purpose of sale it had no business to be in a Hennessy bottle. It had been shown that Christenson was a decent man and conducted his business decently, and the penalty of £50 seemed a severe one in the circumstances. The only point His Honour could consider was a reduction of the penalty, but he did not think he had any power under the Statute to make a reduction. He would adjourn until after lunch to give Mr Beere an opportunity to sec if he could quote any section under which the. fine could be reduced.

When the Court resumed after lunch, Mr Beere quoted a case in which it had bean laid down that in case of an appeal the Court had no power to reduce the penalty. Ho had written down his contentious and would ask His Honour to look into his contentions'. His Honour said he would do this, and would give his judgment later.