SLY GROG.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17837, 9 October 1929, Page 6

SLY GROG.

HAMILTON CONVICTIONS. BEER AT 2/6 A BOTTLE. WINE SOLD FROM CAR. On a recent evening Police-Sergeant Mathicson called on a namesake, one David Mathieson, at the latter’s workshop down an alleyway at the rear of the Silver Grid restaurant, in Victoria

Street, Hamilton. The call was not altogether for the purpose of exchanging greetings with a fellow Scot, and it is safe to say that the official visitor, who had with him a fellow officer in the person of Constable Naylor, was not made wildly welcome.

They sought permission to inspect tlie premises and on doing so discovered a nice little store of bottled beer, aO empties, and 150 capsules. There were also a number of small drinking glasses about the place, which measured five and a-half to the bottle. While the officers were pursuing their investigations no less than 10 different men called at the workshop, but not wishing to intrude on the host and his uninvited guests made hurried excuses and more hurried departures.

To-day, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., Mathieson (David) was charged with selling liquor without being the holder of a license to do so. Through his counsel, Mr J. F. Strang, he pleaded guilty.

Big Profit on Sales. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said Mathieson had been a resident of Hamilton for many years and had reared a large family. He was a carpenter by trade, but of late had been engaged as a cooper by limes’ brewery. Owing to tiic fact that lie was taking a little more liquor than was good for him at the brewery, premises were equipped for him at the rear of the Silver Grid restaurant in Victoria Street. Here he repaired the barrels for the brewety. On a recent evening a raid was made on his premises, where Sergeant Mathieson and Constable Naylor found 1~ quart bottles of beer, 50 empty bottles and 150 capsules. There were a number of glasses present, and it was said defendant was selling this liquor at 6d a glass. It was possible to get live and a-half of these glasses of beer out of one bottle. While the police were there, no fewer than 10 men visited the premises. Defendant, said the Senior-Sergeant, paid 0s a dozen for the bottles from the brewery. The Senior-Sergeant said he warned Mathieson six months ago that he was suspect, and counselled him to give the game up. Mr J. F. Strang said defendant was 00 years of ago and had been 35 years in Hamilton. He had reared a large family, and was very well known in the town. The premises now occupied by defendant were formerly used as a workingmen's club, known as the lakoui Club. While the club was not an active institution men still continued to go there, nad defendant therefore acted rather as an agent lor these men than as a purveyor cf liquor. His Worship remarked that the sale and supply of liquor was safeguarded by the State owing to the evil effects of its iindiscriminate sale and consumption. Defendant apparently had been conducting a sly- grog shop in Hamilton for some time. He appeared to be making an inordinate profit—2s (3d for a 9d bottle. He would be lined £2O and costs.

Defendant asked for time to pay, and on giving sworn evidence that his earnings did not amount to more than £2 a week, lie was permitted to liquidate the fine at the rate of LI-a week.

Wine Made for Entertaining. A local resident named Albert Gifford was charged with selling wine without being the holder of a license to do so, and with manufacturing wine for sale without possessing a winemaker’s license. . Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said that as a result of certain complaints defendant was officially suspected of selling wine. On a recent-night when a dance was in progress at one of the local halls he arrived in his car and was met by Constable Brown, in mufti, who asked him if lie had any wine. Defendant sold him four bottles for 14s ijd. Constable Sutton then approached and defendant said lie had been rung up by somebody who asked him to bring the bottles to the hail. Mr Seymour, for defendant, said the wine was made four years ago by defendant. The offence of manufacturing, charged against defendant, did null lie held, come within the prescribed period of three months, whicli tlic Act limited manufacture to. * With regard Lo the charge of selling, counsel said that four years ago defendant made lb gallons oi grape wine and lb gallons of blackberry wine. This was manufactured for his own use and the entertainment of his friends. He gave a large quantity of it away, and could supply a list of names of persons lo whom he had made presents of bottles. H would be seen from tills Jist /that a \ei\ substantial portion of the amount manufactured was thus given away. lie had been desirous, latterly, ot getting rid of the balance of 11is store, and certain people, apparently hearing of Ibis, had rung him up and asked him to sell them some. This he consented t o do at 3s hd a bottle. Un the night in question lie received a ring trom someone giving the name of Williams, who asked for two gallons. He requested defendant to take several Dottles to a certain hull where he would pick them up and would get Hie balance later. Delendant, when approached by Constable Brown, thought lie must be the man Williams. Defendant, said counsel, was quite unaware that it was illegal to sell home-made wine.

Is License Necessary? The Senior-Sergeant said the wine contained over 2b per cent, of proof spirit. Mr Seymour said defendant had invited the' police to visit ids house to prove his statement that the wine he disposed of that night was practically tlie last of Hie two casks lie had made. Tlic casks iiad formerly been used for brandy, which probably accounted for the strength of Hie wine. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said that if 111 e contention was upheld that the wine could not lie held to have been manufactured for sale because, it was made longer than three months, no one would require to hold a winemaker’s license. His Worship said lie believed Unit this was the end of a lot of wine which defendant had made some years ago. Defendant had said he iiad given a large quantity of the wine away, but admitted that tie iiad sold some. It would not have been so iiad if tie had (Continued in next column).

confined llie sale to his friends, but apparently lie bad been ready lo eonduel sales by telephone. Ilis Worship added that be did not. see Ibal the case differed materially from tbe former ease, and be inflicted a similar penally —ll2O and costs on tbe charge of selling. He dismissed the charge of manufacturing for sale, us he did nol think tills bad been proved-