Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SLY-GROG.

(Per Press Association.)

Wellington, last night. At tbe Magistrate’s Court to day, before Dr. McArthur, Wm. Clark and Edward Barrett, proprietors of an eating house in the oity known as the Strand Cafe, were charged on threo separate informations with having sold beer without being licensed to do so. Evidenoe was given for the prosecution to show that a party of probationary constables visited tbe Cafe on throe successive nights, and while having supper were supplied with bottled beer at Is 6d per bottle by a waitress. One night they purchased a bottle to take away. All the visits were paid after 10 o’clock, at whioh hour the hotels were closed. A day or two after the plaoe was searobod by the police, who found two dozen bodies full of beer, and 75 empty bottles. For the defence Violet Paton, the waitress, deposed that she had instructions f.om her employers not to supply liquor a'ter 10 o’clock at nigbt. Ic was her custom to sond out for liquor required by men who visited the restaurant. She knew that defendants had liquor on the .premises, and granting a favor to the witnesses for the proseoution she told them she would,get a bottle if they did not say anything to tho “ boss.” Clark did not know that witness had taken the liquor I until making up his books subsequently. He found that a bottle had not been acoounted for. He asked witness if she sold if,' and she said " Yob.” He then atked how much she got for it, and she replied Is 6d. To this be added, ‘‘ You can have that; don’t do it again.” > His Worship said he had no hesitation in saying that tho liquor was sold, and that he did not believe the girl. Each defendant would be fined £25 with 3s 6d costs, in dtfault one month's imprisonment.

Counsel for tho defence applied to have the fine reduced to £25 for both defendants.

Hia Worship refused to do this. Wilful perjury, he said, had been committed by the witness for the di fence. . Ho also refused to time hail to defendants.

Counsel said his clients had no money. - His Worship : Well, they must go to gaol.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19060130.2.13

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1661, 30 January 1906, Page 2

Word Count
370

SLY-GROG. Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1661, 30 January 1906, Page 2

SLY-GROG. Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1661, 30 January 1906, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert