LOWER COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1716, 5 April 1913, Page 14

LOWER COURT.

SLY-GROG SELLERS CONVICTED THE CONSTABLE & HIS COMPANION. WAS THERE AN ARRANGEMENT? Alfred Britis, a negro, who lias been several times convicted for sly grog-sell-ing, was sent to prison for six'months by Mr. W. <:!. Ridtlcli, S.M., yesterday, oil n. charge dial 011 the niglii; of April 2 lie had sold lienor to David Wallace. Wallace is a police constable, who went in Britis's house in Waller Street disguised as ;> wharf labourer. Inspector Hendry represented die police .during tho hearing of thp cost', anu Mr,

H. F. O'Btary appeared for Britis, who pleaded not guilty.

"Expert Sly-Grog Catcher?" Constablo David Wallaco stated that on April 2 ho went to Britis's house and asked for a drink "as all tho hotels were shut." Britis said it was all right, and took him insido and sold him a beer. Witness also paid for beer for a man who accompanied him, and for a whisky for Britis. Ho paid Is. for overy drink. Altogothe:: they had six drinks in tho house. On leaving the liouso ho met Senior-Sergeant Eutledge, who subsequently searched the premises. Mr. O'Leary. You are tho expert slygrog J catcher? Witness: Oh, I don't I now. Don't bo modest!—" Well, wo will say that." Who was the man who went with you? —"I don't know." Is it not a fact that it was a man who is now in a lunatic asylum?—"l don't know." Don't you know that you went' that night with a maniac ?—'"l was not aware of it." For Bed or Drink. Was ariy mention mado of getting; a bed when you went to the house?—" Not then." Well, when?—" Not at all." Why did you say "not then" ? Are you really giving us straightforward answers? —"I am." Is it not a fact that tho means by which you got into the' liouse was tho assumption that you were going to get a bed for the night ?—"No." And is i.t not true that tho money paid by you was jiaid'for a bed?—"lt'is not true. The money was paid for drinks." Britis siys you went there with a man at present dn the Porirua Asylum, and asked foi. a bed, and that tho money was paid for that bed, and that you said you wore going away to get.supper, and would co:.no back again?—"l absolutely deny that." The Sergeant's Statement. Senior-Sergeant . Eutledge, of Mount Cook Police Station/ deposed that when lie entered Britis's house Britis denied ■ having sold any. liquor'that night. Witness found a large quantity of . liquor in tho house, and Britis was slightly under the-influence of liquor. Mr. O'Leary: You have told us that Wallace met-a man outsido tho police station. If Wallace swears that there was no arrangement to meet a man, is his statement untrue? Sergeant Eutledge: I told Wallaco in the afternoon that, ho would meet a man. Did Wallace know the man's name?— "No." Does he know it now?—"I think so." A certain thing , has. happened which .would bring tho man prominently before ■you?—"Y-ss; but not before Wallace." Ho is tlie man who hit a"young lady on the head with a hammer, and then gave hiihself up at I'orirua ?—"Yes." Then, you sent a lunatic, along with tho constable'?—"He was in liis proper senses at the time." You know bo 'had'"been in'an asylum before?—" That was some years ago." And he went to Porirua a few days after this raid?—" That was the result of 'drink." Tho Liquor Found. Constable M'Kelvio • gave evidence to the effect that the liquor in the liouso consisted of fifteen full bottles of beer, a cask of 'beer, and some whisky. Wlieu Sergeant Eutledge ■ and witness went to the house witness heard Britis say to .Wallace, who was at the door, "You can't get a bed here to-night."' .'■Mr.' O'Leary: Didn't tliat suggest to' you that Wallace had' asked for a bed ? Constable M'Kelvio: Yes. , Counsel's Comments. Mr. O'lieary said that lie was going to comment severely on Constable Wallace's evidence. Constable Wallace, lie said, had been discovered perjuring himself on a. matter upon which counsel had questioned hita; if Sergeant Kutledgo was to bo believed. Constable Wallaco had stated emphatically several times that there had been no arrangement to meet a man who was to lead him to Britis's bouse. Sergeant Eutledge bad said that there wan an. arrangement which was communicated to Coflstable Wallace, and that ho must have known. Having discovered that Constable Wallace ( wai perjuring himself on one point, how could the Court view . the rest of his evidence? Britis was in the unfortunate position of having been previously convicted, but as Constablo Wallace' had told an untruth .in ono portion of his evidence, his statement that British had sold liquor to him must be looked upon with suspicion. Tlis defendant Britis was then called. He denied having sold AVallace any liquor, and stated that Wallace had asked for a bed, and bad paid for one. During his evidence. Britis remarked: "I admit that I do sell drink—sort of slygrog." . ' Inspector Hendry asked Britis if ii was not a fact-that Britis's, neighbours had requested tho police' .to set .a coustablo to watch tho house on holidays, on account cf the scandal of drunken men going tlieio to -get further under the influence of liquor ? • , Britis replied that men did not get intoxicated on his premises. Six Months' Imprisonment. His Worship said that defendant must bo convicted. Mr.. O'lieary said that Britis was in a bad stato with consumption, -and-.some special provision should bo made respecting his detention. • His Worship said that Britis's plea of ill-health had been carefully gono into previously. Former punishment bad had no permanent effect on Britis, who would now be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. FINE OF £20. Ernest Hallett, .who was defended by Mr. V. E. Meredith, was fined ,£2O, in default ono month's imprisonment, on a charge of having sold liquor (without being licensed to do so) to Constable AVallace on Good Friday. James Conway and John Hughes were each fined <£1. in default three days' imprisonment, on charges of their having been on Hallett's premises. Similar charges against Patrick Needham and John Dwyer wero dismissed. OTHER POLICE BUSINESS. THEFT OF PICKLE-BOTTLES. James Thompson pleaded ■ guilty to a charge of having stolen 24 pickle-bottles belonging' to E. H. Murphy. .. Inspector Hendry said that Thompson had stolen the bottles from a shed at the back of tlie "premises, but had been caught just as ho was leaving tho place. Thompson was fined J2l, and ordered to pay Bs. expenses. James C-ourtney pleaded guilty to two charges of having .stolen a manicure set, a gold ring, and ss. from Clara Louisa Ryan, and clothes valued at ,£G Bs. Gd. from Sydr.ey Adamson. Chief-Detective Broberg asked for a remand till next AVednesday as there was, lie said, t. third charge which required investigation. The remand was granted. TUKIOUS DRIVING. Frank Eavesi was fined J!l, with costs 75., for furiously driving a horse at Island Bay, and .£2, with costs .CI 55., for. overdriving tte animal. Leonard O'Flahcrty, a tram-motorman, pave evidence to tho effect that Kavesi hail driven the horso to Island Bay considerably taster than the tram had travelled. STOCK AT LARGE. For having allowed stock to wander, John Marshall was fined 55., with costs Ws.; Alice Wickman, ss. and 75.; Samuel ißradnock, ss. and 75.; William Bell, 10s. and 75.; and Albert Martin, ss. and 7s. Charges t.gainst William and George Nash were dismissed. Theso two lastnamed eai.es aro fully reported in another column. FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL. For having failed to send children to school Elizabeth Ash was fined is., with costs lis.; W. Green, 2s. and 75.; Frederick Sage, ss.' and 75.; Frank Thompson, 2s. and 75,; and Samuel Jones, 2s. and lis. OTHER CASES. James I.eckio was ordered to pay 7s. cofts respecting a charge that lie' had failed to tap a wages yml ovortimo boot. Walter Norman Connolly and Victor C. Crov.ilicr were each penalised for having failed to comply with the Defence Act. On charnes of insobriety, Nora Nugent

I was fined John Chambers «£!, Charles I Entieott 10s., and William Mack iOs.