LICENSING CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 January 1928, Page 4

LICENSING CASE

EVIDENCE DISBELIEVED

.MAGISTRALE’S C0M.51 EXT. TLMAR.U, Jan. 25. "I do not intend to allow the four witnesses any expenses. They are. a disgrace to the community, they have lied shockingly and brazenly.”-. With these words. Mr C. R. OrrWalker. S.M.. summed nj> the evidence ol Walter Wilson, Frederick Wilson, Stanley Eergusson, and Hugh M. Eergusson, all of Pleasant Point, in a licensing ease concerning Thomas Peach, licensee of the Point Hotel, Pleasant Point, and his wife. Ivy Edith Peach, heard at the Magistrate’s Court, Tiniaru, to-day. The hotel was recently destroyed by lire, and Thomas Peach was charged with selling liquor at an unlicensed house and Ivy Peach was charged with stalling liquor without :i. license. When Walter Wilson stated in evidence that no money had been paid for the drinks he had obtained on several occasions from defendants’ house, which was about 14 chains from the destroyed he.tel, Senior-Sergeant T. Gibson asked if witnesn had made a. contrary statement. Witness: Yes! .Because I was flustered, not being used to interviews with

the police. ; His Worship: Von mgned a statement to-Th© police that you had paid for drinks?—Vos. When did you change your mind? —The same day. Did you discuss this with your rnatea ?—No. You went of your own free will and told the Pleasant Point constable that you had made a mistake in your firststatement ?—Yes. Have you been approached by anyone to give this evidence?—No. .Addressing witness, his Worship said: “I advise you never to crime into the witness box again if you are going {o carry on like you have. You'll get into serious trouble.” Frederick Wilson said that no money had been paid for the drinks, hut he had lied in a statement to the police “just to stick mi for the others.” His Worship asked the next witness, Stanley Fergusson, why he had lied to the police. “Why did you, after drinking the liquor supplied hv your hosts a;t a party, tell the police that you. had paid for it?” he asked. “It’n a hit thin,” he added when witness did not answer. Hugh Fergusson also stated that he had made a false statement to the police in saying that the drinks had been paid for. Mr F. Sergeant, who appeared for defendants, submitted that there was no ease to answer. It had been held that the four witnesses were liars, and that wiped out the evidence. His "Worship said that they were liars on one point and that there was a ease., to answer. Defendant. Ivy Peach, in evidence, said the witnesses had assisted at the time of the hotel fire and she had invited them to the house. She provided the drinks, and had no intention of charging for them. Air Sargent did not call further evidence. His Worship said that the case was a peculiar one in that the witnesses for the prosecution had told stories in the witness box that were different from the stories told to the police. Then they had admitted that they had lied ,to the police. Personally, ho did not believe them, but that did not dispose of the ease. It had been admitted that liquor had been supplied and consumed, and he was to believe that it had been given free. Mrs Peach had given most peculiar evidence; it was tainted the same as was that for the prosecution. He could not take "her evidence. The defendants were in a position similar to anybody living in a private-house. The charge against Thomas Peach was dismissed, and Ivy Peach was fined £5 with costs £1 4s. Witness’s expenses were not allowed.