Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 16 December 1933, Page 2

Was Hayes’ wife there?—Yes.. To whom did you pay the money for the bottle of; ibeer ? —To Hayes.

Sergeant .C. J, King said .that on December 4, under authority of a search warrant he searched Hayes’ premises. He was met at the door by Hayes, to. whom he introduced himself and explained his business, stating he was | going to search the pi'emises. He found •two men • sitting on a settee, with three glasses of beer, and three empty bottles on the table. Near the door was a, ten gallon keg, containing only a little beer. Three, more full bottles were .found in this room, and five others in another room. Ouiside of the buildipg were found four kegs, two ten-1 gallon barrels, an 18-gal?on barrel, and 91 empty bottles. On the keg inside was a lable bearing a name. Hayes, denied that he, had „• ever ordered any beer. Witness had inspected the order •books at the Westland Brewery, and found enti’ies to “Hayes and party,” “Hayes and Tunnellei’s,” while, there was also an order to Hayes himself. The orders were : —October 2, and November 4, 18 gallons; November 29, 10 gallons and five dozen bottles. The orders were brought up vexlbally, be understood, and the money paid. I Counsel: Hearsay evidence. I

Couneel said that there wa s no licensed place nearer -than Waiho, and dif* fieult of, access to workmen at Weheka. Ten men, associated as tunnellers, had banded together in a legal way- to get liquor, out of a common fund, for their refreshment. The term “shout” ,as used by them was not-admission of a sale, ■but a notice to fill up the glasses only, •without the transfer of money. The r e was no suggestion of privacy from outside las far as these men were concerned. O’Halloran’s evidence would be denied, and it would be shown that 0 Hallovan himself was in a state, of intoxication. On this particular night the money passed was money which was taken up for a. picnic fund and. which w«,s given to the teacher toward the children’s picnic fund. O’Halloran had (contributed to the fund, and he had:either forgotten his "act, or suppressed t.« fact in his evidence.

The defendant Haye s admitted empty casks .were..found, but denied that any undue amount was ever ordered; He said the tunnelling , party, . had asked him if he would keep the beer here, and his wife ’consented .only so long as “they .behaved themselves.” When he' was there the men took up a ‘‘tarpaulin muster- in each case, each contributing to the total cost. O’Halloran had not paid for ..any. »e>u .at witness' place where -nine o r ten others ..were .present; O’Halloran was brought up',t6. the house by Mcßie who asked witness to give his guest a drink. Altogether, 'O’Halloran drank.seven and a half pints, aiid-was “on his toes, a bit.?’ Witness took no money for the beer, but accepted a . donation toward the' children’s ..picnic ~,next' day, and toward which the men had “taken the hat” round. The money was later handed over to the school teacher. ; On this night, the men, having finished the tunnel work; had decided to celebrate the success of their work, Witness -said that O'Hallorim upon leaving said "I'll be a bit crook in the morning. Sell me a bottle of beer.” Witness did not sell him a bottle, but gave it to him. Personally he had no interest, in the party, the reason that his name was on the Brewery books being that the liquor was left ,at his place for the men. Witness was closely cross-examined by -Inspector Lopdell.

Frederick Mannix -said that O’Halloran was intoxicated that night, so much so that he gave a performance of the “shimmy,” much to the amusement of the men.

James Aitken claimed that O’Halloran had already had liquor before arriving at Hayes’. Joseph Allen land Bert Adamson gave corroborative evidence.

- The Magistrate (Mr W. Meldrum), said the’ evidence .for the prosecution was practically that of the constable, O’Halloran. His evidence, -however, was contradicted by -defendant and witnesses who said that the Is 6d paid over was for a picnic fund, not for beer, while it was flatly denied that o’Hallor.an paid 5s 6d to Hayes for a round of drinks. The evidence was practically, conclusive that Hayes w,as not carrying on a “sly-grogging” business. He was making no money out of it, nor had he intention of so doing. The whole affair was a convenience for the tunnellers who wished for -a jollification during the week-end, and for which purpose H-ayes lent his house.

The charges were dismissed, and an order made for the return of the liquor.