PROCURING LIQUOR

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2095, 3 June 1907, Page 2

PROCURING LIQUOR

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.

STRONG REMARKS BY THE BENCH.

Alfred Edward Hepburn, a carter] was charged at the Police Court on Saturday with procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. Mr. T. A Alston Coleman appeared lor tho accused, and the police wore represented by Sergeant Williams. William Henry Pritchard, laborer, deposed that he saw Hepburn several times on Saturday, 25th May and helped him to load his dray at the wharf. V as with him for about an hour at different parts of the town. While at O’Meara’s defendant asked him to get a bottle of beer for bis lunch. Witness did this, and Hepburn gave him Is to pay for it. Did not see him drink it, but placed it by accused’s lunch at his request. By Mr. Coleman : Did not say that he gave the .. beer to a man named Weston, but would not swear it. Gave defendant, the beer about ten minutes after receiving the money.' This would he after 3 p.m. It may not have been by his lunch that the beer was placed; defendant asked him to put it beside some things. ' When he put the beer down he left because he wanted some lunch himself. Saw defendant, again that day about half an hour later in Gladstone road. Did not see anybody else about when ho left the beer at O’Meara’s. Was positive he (witness) did not suggest procuring the liquor. Did not say “How would a bottle of liquor go Fred?” On the Monday morning saw defendant and told him that ho had loooived a summons for procuring -

tlio liquor, and ho said ho had gob » into a mess. Defendant did not say ho had had a summons Hepburn did not deny having got tho boor from witness. Ro-exnmihed : Ho had no desire to get Hepburn into trouble. Tlio police approached him in tho matter. yfr. Coleman said it was not denied that tho shilling was given by Hopburn, but it was at Pritchard’s request. Hepburn denied having seen tho former before Monday. Then lie upbraided Pritchard for not bringing tho beer. Had it been brought, ho did not dony it would have been consumed. It was quite possible that he could liavo given the beer to someone else or had drank it himself. Accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated that about half-past two on Saturday afternoon, ho mot Pritchard at O’Meara’s. Pritchard said to witness, “How would a boor go?” “Not too bad,” replied witness, ho asked Hepburn if lie had a ' shilling. Gave him the shilling and that was the last ho saw of him that day.' Met him again on Monday between 11 and 12. Ho said ho had got in trouble about that bottle of boor, and that- Constable Hancox said ho : would arrest him under tho Vagrancy Act if lie did not -clear out of town. Did not ask him to placo tho beer anywhere. Left within a fow minutes to catch a coach. Cam© back to . O’Meara’s about five o’clock, but saw •sijto beer there and did not get any. ' By the Seagealit: Was not in a , stable near tlio wharf on tho Satur- i day, after lie gave Pritchard the slid- , ling, and did not take a horse out of of the stable after that transaction. ] If it was assorted that Pritchard was , present in tho stable, after giving 5 him tho shilling, 110 would deny it. Ho would swear this. Left town for , ... home about 6 p.m. Was not tho j worse for drink. j By Mr. Coleman: Left liis horse f out of town. Had no stable at or near tlio wharf, y His Worship said that nofwith- f standing tho evidence for the do- y fence ho was satisfied that tlio liquor ( was procured. rfe was sorry Hepburn had gone into the box and made j statements of which he (his Worsliip) did not believe a word. Everything r possible had been done for this man but lie was apparently going from ( bad to worse. If he continued it c must become serious indeed, probably ending in a lunatic asylum. Ho j -'"ivould bo fined £5, 9s costs or in default of immediate payment, six -j weeks’ hard labor in Napier goal. ,