MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8013, 19 September 1906, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

♦ WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr H. YV. Northcroft, S.M.) Daniel Holland, who was" ( defended by Mr H. T. Giliios, was charged that on August Bth, lie, being the licensee of the Fraukton Hotel, did supply a Maori not married to a Europeau, one Pipi Makawheri, with whiskey tor consumption, off the premises. Pepi, a Te Kuiti Maori, gave evidence, interpreted by Mr VV. A. Graham, that on the day in question he was travelling from L'aupiri, after attending a funeral, and obtained a bottle of whisky at the Frankton Hotel. Mrs Holland served him, Mr Holland being present. Other Maoris were with him, and .he heard no question as to his being a half-caste.

To Mr Gillies: He was a pure Maori. Holland served him with two drinks in the b ir, but he was certain had nothing to do with the selling of the bottle. Ho denied having told tne police that Holland had h^m. Wnarenui Kingi, a native of Kawhia, gave ev.deuce corroborative of the former witness, exc <pt that in cross-examination he s.i-id he was sure Pepi lud no drinks iu the hotel. Mr 3 Holland gave to Pepi oue bottle and to witness three, Holland tried to take the bottles away from them, but they persuaded him to consent to their having the liquor. Wheu asked by the police as to the affair, he meant by his reply that Holland consented to Pepi and him having the whiskey, Mr Gillies said the answer to the charge was an absolute denial of the sale, and pointed out to His Worship discrepancies in several minor points of the Maoris' evidence, as showing how unreliable their testimony was. Diniel Holland, defendant and licensee of the Frankton Hotel, swore that he did not remember ever seeing the Maoris on the premises. Their evidence was untrue. He never served a Maori with liquor for consumption off the premises. He did not remember August 8., hin particular, but could swear he could tell oue Native from another.

Mary Teresa Holland, wife of the de fendant, denied remembranoe of the Maor witness.

His Worship, in his judgment, said the contention that the liquor had been obtained before reaching Frankton, was against tho probabilities. He saw no reason to doubt the Maoris' evidence It was immaterial whether the liceusee or his servauts served the liquor, the responsibility was thrown on the former. He would convict, the amount of the fine to be settled after the other two charges were disposed of.

Holland was further charged with a similar offenco in supplying Wharenui Ivingi, but the police, on the suggestion of His Worship, withdrew tho information. Mrs Holland was also charged with selling, on August Ist, to a Maori, Te Ariki, who was not married to a European, whisky for consumption off the premises. I'he evidence of Te Ariki and Pepi was to tho effect that the liquor had been obtained on the jouruey down to the tangi at 'l'aupiri. His Worship said that as the oosta in these cases were heavy he would not infiiot as he ivy a line as he would otherwise have done. It was the first brought before him under the amended Act, and publicans must not think that he would deal as lightly with subsequent cases, for he would not. He would not be satisfied with the licensee saying he thought the man was a halfcaste. The licensee must know of his own knowledge that such was the case. Defendant was fined £2 with 9s costs. In the former case a fioe of £5 was imposed with costs £S Is Id