HOTELKEEPER’S ENEMIES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 850, 21 June 1906, Page 21

HOTELKEEPER’S ENEMIES.

The hearing of the charges of illegally selling, and of illegally assisting in the sale of intoxicating liquors, was heard at the Police Court last Thursday. Wm. Jones, Wm. Burgess, Chas. White, John Nobelo, Hector Munro, Anthosy Vuicch were next charged with being on the premises . of Nicholas Green (previously convicted for sly grog-selling) for the purpose of illegally assisting in the sale of intoxicating liquor. Sergeant Carroll, who executed the search warrant in the premises of Nicholas Green, stated that he found Jones upstairs in a filthy room, quite drunk; Burgess was in the diningroom, and said he came for breakfast. It was then 11 o’clock, and there was no sign of breakfast.; .Nobelo was also in the , He stated that he bought a,-bottle of whisky there

the night before. This whisky was found in a case under the shop counter. Vuicch and White were also in the dining-room. Munro was there in a state of intoxication. Burgess did not appear. Constable Anderson, who accompanied Sergeant Carroll, corroborated, and Sergeant Carroll proved the sale of liquor. His Worship stated that the law presumed the men were there for an unlawful purpose unless they could prove that they were there for a proper reason. Jones stated that he went into Green’s for breakfast at 9 a.m., and afterwards lay down on a bed and went to sleep. His Worship: And you a married man with a wife and home on the other side of the city. I don’t believe you. Munro stated that he went into the house with a friend and had a glass of beer there. Nobelo stated that on Saturday night he took a bottle of whisky to Green’s, intending to take it to Waipu to shout for his mate. He went to the house next morning to get it. His Worship said that he was satisfied the whole lot of them were there for no good purpose. They were there to get drink. The only thing that commended itself to him was Munro’s frank admission. He would convict the whole lot of them, and would fine them 40/ and costs 7 / each, with the exception of Munro, who would be fined £1 and costs. He made this difference to mark his approval of a man guilty of a crime owning up to it. The default was fixed at one month’s imprisonment, and in the case of Munro at a fortnight. Thomas Davis was next' charged with illegally selling liquor on May 27, with assisting in the illegal sale of liquor on June 3 (two charges), and with being on premises for the purpose of illegally dealing in liquor on June 3. His wife, Caroline Davis, was also charged with the illegal sale of liquor. Mr. Reed, who appeared for defendants, and pleaded guilty, suggested that as Mrs. Davis was acting on behalf of her husband she should be discharged, otherwise the infliction of a heavy penalty in each case would mean that both would have to go to gaol. Sub-Inspector Gordon stated that the circumstances were similar to those in the case of Green. The constables were told to follow the stream, and they did so, entering Davis house, where they purchased liquor without any difficulty from Mrs. Davis, the husband being absent at the time. He came in later on, and after putting out a drunk joined in a general drink. He suggested that the woman should be convicted and discharged, and the man dealt with on each charge. His Worship agreed to follow that course. It was, he said, possible for him to inflict such fines that defendant could not possibly pay, and must go to gaol, and if that were necessary to put the offence down he would do it. But for the first offence it was desirable that they should be given good stiff fines, and the effect noted before sending them to gaol. Mr. Reed: These defendants are liable to fines totalling £5OO. Sub-Inspector Gordon said that they did not wish to crush the woman, ail j had charged the man with aiding and abetting in order to relieve her. He proposed to withdraw the other charges when a conviction had been recorded on her. His Worship, speaking to the male defendant, said that if he came before him again he would be sent to gaol without the option of a fine. “Why did you go into the sly grog business?” he asked. . ~ “I always kept a little for friend, was the reply; “but two or three came up and I sold the drink for money. His Worship said he would treat Davis the same way as Green, and would fine him £l2 and costs 7/ on each of the three first charges. On the charge of being on the premises where liquor was illegally sold, he inflicted a fine of £2 and costs, a total of £39 8/. Defendant asked for a month to In answer to the Bench, Sub-In-spector Gordon said that the case was a bad one. Many complaints had been received in connection with the place, and the scenes which occurred were simply disgraceful. The police saw drunks going about, and knew where the supply was being obtained. They had to take against the persons supplying, and so shut their eyes to the drunkards so as to get at the source of the supply. - On the suggestion of counsel, de-

fendant was given till next day to secure a bonds nan to sign a bond that the fines would be paid within a month. The woman was convicted and discharged on the first count, the others being withdrawn. His Worship pointed cut that he had treated both defendants as first offenders, although there had been several sales. Il ever they came before him again and were convicted of sly grog-sell-ing, they would go to gaol without the option of a fine for the full term the law allowed.

Thos. Wilson was similarly charged, but as there was no proof that he had received the warrant, the case was adjourned. Jas. Wilson, represented by Mr. J. R. Reed, pleaded guilty to selling liquor without a license. Mr. Re.’ii said his client was only 19, and was on a different plane to the other defendants, as he had no interest ;n the sale, and was selling for his elder brother. He suggested that a small fine would meet the case. Sub-Inspector Gordon said that defendant sold liquor to the constables and to private persons in their presence. This case was one of the worst of all. His Worship : The town seems rotten with sly grog shops. Mr. Reed: I had no idea it was so bad. It comes as a surprise to me. His Worship: There are sly grog shops all over the city. Sub-Inspector Gordon: In this locality there has been a lot of sly grogselling. The persons who frequent these shops are mostly of the criminal class and prohibited persons. His Worship said that in the present case the other man was the principal, and this was the assistant. It was quite clear where the drunks came from. These people kept them going. Sub-Inspector Coidon: There is no doubt about it.

His Worship: It is not the hotelkeepers but these people who supply us with our drunks every morning. Accused was fined £5 and costs 7 1, in default a mouth Jas. Maxwell pleaded guilty to illegally selling liquor on April 27. SubInspector Gordon said the man had cleared out when he knew the summons was coming and had only recently returned The case was exactly the same as those of Green and Davis. His Worship said that he would treat accused the same as the others. He had no do ibt that although there was only one charge, the trade had been carried on systematically. He inflicted a fine of £35 and costs, in default a month, and declined to give time to pay. Nicholas Heith, for whom Mr. Reed appeared, pleaded guilty to assisting in the illegal sale of liquor. Mr. Gordon stated that defendant was on the watch cutside, and was getting the men away as quickly as possible after they had had their drink, before the police could see them. . Mr. Reed said that accused derived no benefit from the sale. He was on the look-out, more for the sake of sport than ga;n His Worship: Pretty expensive sport. He would make some distinction between this case and that of those who actually profited by the sale. The fine would be £lO and costs 7/, in default a mcnth. “If you carry on the game of siv grog-selling you will have to pay or go to gaol,” he concluded.

John King, V m Richardson, Jas. Armstrong, Jas. Pitkeithley, Wm. Dalziel and Thos. Fletcher were charged with being on the premises of Thos. Wilson for th-- j uipGse of illegally dealing in liquor Others charged did not appear, the summonses not having been served. Sergeant Hanson stated that on Sunday, 3rd inst., he entered Thos. Wilson’s premises, and found 25 men, •ot including the two Wilsons. Seveia‘ of those on the premises had been convicted of the it, being illegally on the premises, drunkenness, resisting the police, and other offences. The house contained seven rooms, and there were five children in it. Three of those found in the house were very drunk, and othuis w-'ie under the influence of Lquor. Armstrong saul he came to see the boss, Richards-m to see a friend, Dalziel to see the boss, Fletcher to see members of a football club, King to get a drink, and Pitkeithley to see the boss. In reply to a question, Sergeant Hanson stated that Richardson was not under the influence of liquor. District Constable Rowe corroborated.

In defence, Armstrong stated that King asked him to go to his boardinghouse, stating that he had a drop of liqi or. They went to Wilson’s, and the raid toox place directly after.

Richardson stated that he met a friend named Dalziel, and went to look for a friend of the latter’s from the King Country. They were directed to Wilson’s, and were asked inside a few moments before the police arrived. He saw no signs of liquor. Dalziel made a similar statement, and said that he had no need to go to a sly grog shop, as his mother kept a hotel- and he could get all the drink he required. His Worship said that he believed that every mother’s son of them went to the house to get liquor, whether successful or not he could not say. He convicted the whole of them, and fined each £2 and costs 7/, in default a month’s hard labour. Richardson asked “to be given until noon next day to raise the fine, stating that he had an office in Customs-street. The application was declined.