ALLEGED SLY-GROG RESORT.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1172, 26 September 1912, Page 25

ALLEGED SLY-GROG RESORT.

RAID AT NEWTOWN. Considerable interest centres in two cases heard at the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, last week. A restaurantkeeper, named Mrs; Gertrude Bennett, was charged with having kept liquor for sale within the Wellington South No-License district, and with being the keeper of premises, in a no-license district, maintained as a place of resort for the consumption of intoxicating liquor.

Senior-Sergeant Matheson, gave dence that about t ,2.30 o’clock on the morning of September 7 tie had entered the premises of Mrs. Bennett. He had been admitted by a man named Scoones, to whom witness had said that he was in possession of a warrant entitling him to search the place for liquor. Constables Taylor, , Willetts, and Joss had accompanied witness. He had gone into the diningroom, and had there seen seven men. Five of the men had been sitting round a table, and the other two had been sitting in chairs asleep and in a drunken condition. Scoones had informed the sergeant that Mrs Bennett had gone to bed, and that he was acting for her and was in charge. In a recess under .the > staircase the sergeant had found 21 quart bottles of beer, which Scoones had said belonged to Mrs Bennett. Witness had continued the search into the kitchen, where he had found an empty whisky bottle and a demijohn with about a gallon of beer in it. In the back yard, he had,.found a bottle containing whisky, and in an outhouse seven empty whisky bottles. Statements alleged to have been made to the police by Mrs. Bennett and Scoones were then read. The sergeant went on to state that in consequence of complaints the premises had been under observation nightly for three months.

Mr Myers, for defendant: Mrs Bennett, I think, keeps a shop—a restaurant and tea-room? ( Witness: Yes.

And it is frequented a good deal by tramway men? —“Yes.”

Don’t you know that tramwaymen are in the habit of going there for supper after working late? —“Yes.”

And is it not a fact that all these men were tramwaymen?—“All, with one exception.” The sergeant added that the exception had been a tramway employee. He said, also, that the men who had been awakened were under the influence of liquor.

iMr Myers: Are you certain of that? —“Yes. I told them at the time.”

Well, even if they were, you did not see them go in? —“No.” And they might have gone there under the influence of liquor?—“Yes.” Constable Taylor gave evidence as to what he had seen on the night of the 7th. Mr. Myers: Are you sure that this man whom you describe as being asleep was under the influence of liquor? Witness: That is my opinion. He had to be shaken up, you say? —“ He was very hazy when he awoke, and exclaimed: What! What! What! What! What!’” Constable Willetts, in the course of his evidence, stated that six out ’of the seven men found on Mrs Bennett’s premises : were ■■ married meh. On various occasions when he had had the place under observation, he had seen men come away from it in. the early hours of the morning. On one occasion-he had met a man who had said that he had.come from Mrs Bennett’s, and that it had cost him £1 for drinks. The man had at that time been under the influence of liquor. Mr Myers submitted that both cases should be dismissed. The most which could be said for the prosecution was that there were some circumstances which might be suspicious. There was absolutely no evidence to the effect that Mrs Bennett had kept liquor for sale on September 7. Neither had the police adduced any evidence to sustain the other charge. A large number of witnesses was called by the defendant. Six of those who had been on the premises when the police raided the place swore that they had gone to the shop for supper at about midnight, and had afterwards played cards and talked. They said that they had never bought drink

there.' Four other witnesses, three of whom were women, deposed that •they had been in the habit of going to Mrs Bennett’s for musical evenings, and that on these occasions’, mere had always been “liquor” offered at supper time to anyone who . preferred it to other drink. His Worship reserved decision. He said that he wished to look over the evidence, because there appeared to. be contradictory statements. In delivering judgment a few days later the Magistrate s ("Mr W. G. Riddell, SJM.) dismissed the charges against defendant. He said there whs evidence that a large quantity of liquor had been taken to defendant’s premises during the past six months, but the evidence was conflicting as to . whether the • two tramway meh found on the premises were or were not drunk. Though the police bad had occasion to watch the premises for some considerable time, there was no evidence to show that drunken men had been seen leaving them in the early hours of the morning. He was not prepared to say on the conflicting evidence whether the tramway men in the house on the morning of September 7 had obtained drink there or that liquor had been sold them. The case was a suspicious one, and if persons like the tramway men and' the defendant placed themselves in 1 such circumstances as called for action by the police, they must take the risk. The case was very close to the border, line, but defendant must receive the benefit of the doubt. The case against her would be dismissed. . The charges against Albert Scoones "? of assisting iii keeping the place as a resort for the consumption of ,i--quor. and against the seven mem found on the premises were withdrawn. Thomas Madden, secretary of the Staples Brewery Co., was charged with having failed to send at the proper time a notice to the Clerk of the Court respecting liquor which had been sent to Gertrude Bennett; who lived -in a No-License district.

Sub-Inspector Sheehan stated that on September 6 the Staples Company had received an order from Mrs Bennett for four gallons of beer, and the beer had been delivered that day. The Clerk of the Court had not re-, ceived the notice until September 9.

Mr A. Gray, counsel for the defendant company, said that the omission of a clerk to post the company’s letter on the evening of Friday, Sep- . tember 6, had been, in a sense, responsible for the delay in the notice reaching the clerk. When the clerk had found on the Saturday morning that the letters were still in the pigeon-hole, he had taken them to a nearby pillar-box, and had posted them at about 9 o’clock. This letterbox was cleared at 9.15 a.m., and the Post Office had said that the letters from it would be in the private boxes at about 10 a.m. So, had the i.Court officials made more than an early morning clearance of the Court letter-box the notice would have been received on Saturday morning, instead of Monday, and that would probably have been accepted as satisfactory. The defendant company was fined £l, with costs 7s.