LET OFF LIGHTLY.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 985, 21 January 1909, Page 22

LET OFF LIGHTLY.

The charges against William Christopher Maidens and William Alfred Lack, who were arrested in connection with the recent seizure of a whisky still in Waihi, were heard at the Police Court last Thursday, Before Mr. F. J. Burgess, S.M. Maidens was charged with unlawfully made spirits, and, further, with hav ing had in his possession and upon his premises a still without having first obtained a license for keeping or using the same. Lack was charged with having been found on the premises where illicit distillation was carried on, and also with assisting Maidens in the making of spirits. Mr. Selvyn Mays, of Auckland, representing the Crown solicitor, prosecuted. Mr. F. H. Mueller appeared for Maidens, who pleaded guilty to the charge of making spirits, and Mr. Clendon for Lack, who entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. After Mr. Mays had stated the facts of the case Inspector Kiely, Sergeant McKinnon, Constables Driscoll, Cummings, and Myles gave evidence relative to the discovery of the still, its seizure, and the arrest on the premises of the accused men, one of whom (Maidens), when charged, had said, “Wo were only making a drop for our own use.” Mr. Clendon, in addressing the Court on behalf of Lack, held that the accused had no knowledge of the existence of the still prior to being found on the premises on January 5, and had not assisted in the manufacture of the liquor. Lack, who went into the box, denied all previous knowledge of the existence of the stilly and saiu t>at he had not assisted Maidens in the manufacture of liquor. When under cross-examination by Mr. Mays, however, he stated that Maidens had told him of the existence of the still prior to his entering the premises. He also stated that all the information he had given to the police after his arrest, concerning the working of the still, had been given to him by Maidens. Maidens, who also gave evidence, stated that Lack had not in any way assisted him in the manufacture of liquor, and had known nothing of the still before entering the premises a few minutes prior to the seizure of the plant by the police. He denied having told Lack anything concern-

ing the still at any time prior to his entering the premises, and also the statement that he had given Lack information as to the working of the still after arrest. After testimonials as to Lack’s previous good character had been read, the magistrate commented on the contradictory nature of The evidence, and said he was satisfied tnat Lack had previously known «<f ths existence of the still. There was nothing to show that he had assisted in the manufacture of liquor, but he (Mr. Burgess) was inclined to the opinion that he had /gone on the premises with the object of assisti ig. A conviction would, therefore, be recorded, but in view of accused’s previous good character the minimum fine of £5O would be imposed, the default being six months’ imprisonment. His Worship, in dealing with Mai dens, also took into consideration the accused’s previous igood character, coupled with the fact that he had a wife, child, and parents dependent upon him. The fine in his case was fixed at £6O, or, in default, six months’ imprisonment.