DETECTING SLY GROG SELLERS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1154, 23 May 1912, Page 20

DETECTING SLY GROG SELLERS.

- A JUDGE’S COMMENT. The means adopted by the police in. the detecting of sly-grog selling was recently discussed before the Supreme Court at Dunedin. The case was one in which Margaret Parker was indicted for selling intoxicating liquor without being licensed to de so. The jury disagreed on two occasions, and the accused was discharged. Counsel for the defence, Mi’ Hanlon, in his address to the jury, contended that a great deal of evidence was of very little value in assisting the jury to come to a conclusion. The production of bottles and other things might be prima facie evidence of crime in a no-license district, but it was of little moment in this case, because the simple question for the jury was, Did Mrs Parker sell intoxicating liquor without being licensed to do so? It was admitted that she was not licensed, but the Crown had to prove that she sold the liquor. It did not matter how much liquor she had in her possession, the question was, Did she sell the liquor? The onus of proving the charge lay on the Crown. They wanted purity in the administration of justice. They wanted witnesses who were trustworthy, honest, and honourable, and not actuated by a desire- to wreak vengeance on someone who had done them a bad turn. And yet that was all the jury had in this case.

His Honour, in summing up, said it was perfectly well recognised that strategy had to be used to catch people at this business. It was quite legitimate that strategy should be used, because offenders could not be caught without it. Nor could they expect that a person who acted as an informer must necessarily be a very desirable individual. In the present case Hollander was actuated not by any desire for money, but because he had a spite against a woman, and wanted to get even with her, and that was an element that must be taken into consideration in deciding how far his evidence was credble. The jury had to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, they were satisfied that there was a sale of liquor by the accused to Hollander. And what was the evidence? Hollander was the only witness to prove the actual sale. The evidence of the detective and the constable did not prove the sale or that the man got the liquor. The methods adopted in connection with the case were most reprehensible. It was a positive disgrace, and it was only by such tactics that it was possible for the police to get convictions. Mr Justice Chapman had spoken recently against the methods of the police in a case of the sort. The learned Judge, in his statement, had said that if the police sent a respectable agent, or a constable or a probationary constable, to see whether a person would sell liquor, there was no objection. But was it right that, as in this case, the police should pick up a man whom they knew was embittered against a suspected person—a man who was disposed to act out of spite, ill-will, and a desire to get even —and use that man as a witness against a person who was suspected of selling li-

quor unlawfully? Mr Justice Chapman had said there was a proper way to do this sort of thing; let the police do it by a thoroughly respectable agent. But could the jury bel eve it was proper that the police should use a man who admitted that he wanted to get even? How could they rely on the evidence of such a man? In these cases the police received rewards, so that they had an interest in trying to establish a case. In this case they got hold of Hollander, who, upon his oath, said he wanted to get a “dirty one” on to Mrs Parker. He wanted to get her prosecuted, and he said himself that he acted out of spite. Qn the sole testimony of such a witness depended the proof of the actual sale of the liquor.