TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 140, 18 March 1909, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Monday, March 15th, 1909. Before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M. —A Liquor Case.- — Claude C. Walker and Richard Hewer were charged with bringing liquor, intended for sale, into a Native nolicense area. Constable Mathew conducted the prosecution, and Mr Sharpies appeared for the defence. The facts of the case as stated were that the defendant, Walker, hire i a buggy at Te Kuiti and engaged Hewer to drive him to Kihikihi and back. Walker paid £2 for the buggy and £2 to Hewer to drive. The journey was made, and defendants returned with two cases of whisky, both of which were properly labelled. Upon arriving at Te Kuiti defendants were accosted by Constable Mathew, who took possession of the whisky, and subsequently laid an information against defendants.

Constable Mathew gave evidence as to meeting defendants with the whisky, and as to suspecting the liquor was for sale. When accosted by witness defendants said they had two cases of whisky—one each —and Walker said it was his birthday, and be understood a man could bring in a case of whisky for his own use. In cross-examination by Mr Sharpies, witness said he knew nothing against defendants. His grounds for suspecting the liquor was for sale were general. There was a great deal of liquor coming into the district. The day following that upon which the liquor was seized there was a stock sale at Te Kuiti, and a land sale at Aria. Constable Fraser gave evidence as to the fact that a great quantity of liquor came into the district, paricularly into Te Kuiti. Mr Sharpies, in opening for the defence raised the point that the place where the liquor was seized was crown land, and could not be held to be a Native no-license area.

His Worship ponited out that of the land was Native owned at the time the proclamation was issued constituting the district a no-license area, the district would continue under no license, notwithstanding portion of it became Crown land. Mr Sharpies submitted htat there was no delivery of the liquor. His clients had no opportunity of getting rid of the whisky. They were treated on the highwayman system, only instead of a flintlock or pistol being used, a far more effective method was pursued; they were called upon to stand and deilver in the name of the law. The liquor certainly was not sold and counsel contended that the one act did not presuppose it was to be kept for sale. Seeing that the ilquor had not reached its destination, Mr Sharpies said he could not use the defence of showing what had become of the liquor. He was forced to adopt the defence of showing that under the circumstances it would not have been protfiable for Walker to have sold the whisky; he was of general good character, and had never been known to have sold any liquor in his life. Claud Clarence Walker stated, in evidence, that he had been farming at Aria for about three and a half years. He sold his interest in the farm last November for £3OO, of which he obtained £IOO cash. On January 25th he went to Kihikihi and purchased 6 bottles of whi ;ky, and on arriving at re Kuiti he discovered the 6 bottles missing. He was angry over the loss, and determined to have some liquor. He hired a trap and engaged Hewer to drive him to Kihikihi. He paid £2 for the trap and £2 for the driver. Witness procured two cases of whisky at Kihikihi, one of which he gave to Hewer, the driver. They left Kihikihi about daybreak, and arrived at Te Kuiti about 9 a.m., when Coonstable Mathew accosted them. Witness corroborated Constable .Mathew's account of the interview, except as to the remark regarding it being hi i birthday. He had no recollection of having made the remark. Including the expenses the two ca ;es of whisky cost him about £ls. Had he wished to sell the whiskyit could not have been sold at a profit. Had never seen whisky sold at Aria, nor did he know of it being sold. Many of the settlers brought whisky in and they and their friends drank it. Witness said in the past he had followed the same custom. As to the suggestion by Constable Mathew that the liquor might have been wanted for the sale next day witness said he had no thought of the sale. He was anxious to get home as he had a borrowed horse, and also wished to talk over business with Mr Holloway. Cross-examined by Constable Mathew, witness said he had given a bottle of whisky away, and had looked for no retrun. On only one occasion previously had he brought in a case of whisky. He had several times brought in two or three bottles. Constable Mathew had once spoken to witness about bringing in whisky. On going trips down country had been requested to bring back whisky for people. Had never done so. Witness stated that on the journey to Kihikihi he could not say whether he bad whisky with him or not. He was somewhat inebriated. Re-examined by Mr Sharpies, witness said had an idea of taking over a ! butchery business at Aria, and had the business under offer until the 26th. His journey to TeAwamutu in the first instance was for the purpose of seeing a man, who was supposed to be at Te Awamutu, as to whether he would join witness in the business. Witness found the man was not at Te Awamutu, and wired to Holloway declining to take the business. The wire was sent from Kihikihi. Witness was subjected to a long examination by the Magistrate on various points of his evidence. As to being frequently at Te Kuiti witness gave reasons in connection with his business. Since November last he had been at Te Kuiti or, four occasions. The previous occasion on which he had brought a ca.-e ■.-: whisity in was during Christmas ':. ■'. :Ja; -. when returning iron; "»Vaii-.i. Witness also gave particulars as v, his career lor the previous twelve or fourteen years. Re- j gardirg the giving of a case of whisky ! to Hewer, witness said he was slightly ; inebriated, and his state may have in- j eiuced him to do so. Evidence as to defendant's character j and to genera! conditions at Aria was ; given by Messrs Smyth, Molone, Coll- ; ins, Smitt, O'Connell, and McClymont, j

who all stated that Walker to their knowledge, had never sold whisky, and expressed the opinio:: tr.at he v.-as not a man Hkeh* to do so. —The Case against Hewer.— Richard Hover, or.o of toe defendants, relate.; in evidrr.re one facts of the journey :: ar.l fr;::: Kihikihi. The gift of'a :-aso of---Itlsky y Walker was not ;;&vo;;ent for nis services. Witness sale! I:e flf no: remember Walker sav::-.:- a. yrl:i..g a rot his birthday to Constai..". Hatf-ov Witness had never ha:: vols :y in any quantity in his possess!::: l:o::ro. In cross-o;;an:!::a:!:o v,|o:e-- stated he had not thorough.y :;:a:;e up: his mind about taking the vo.is.oy at the time Constable Matr.ew appeared on the scene. He inter.aeo rrvnog to tne stables and providing Walo.er v.-as of the same mind, witness woulu have driven back to his house ana taoen tne whisky with him. To His Worship: Had no loea why Walker gave him the case unless it v.-as from good nature. On the drive from Kihikihi Walker repeated his offer of the case and witness accepted. Walker was not intoxicated. When getting the vehicle from the stable to go or. the journey Mr McDonald said "you don't want to be fetching drink in this gig. " I said: "I don't know what 'Walker is going for." Witness further stated that it was the general irr.pres "lon in the place that a man was entitled to bring in a case of whisky for his own use. Upon being pressed by His Worship as to whether he and Walker had not agreed to say that T fhere was one case each, when all the liquor really belonged to Walker,witness adhered strongly to his statement as to the gift. Evidence as to character was given on behalf of defendant by Alexander Scholes, J.P., and Henry John Mussen - both witnesses stating they had known defendant well for a number of years and had every belief in his integrity. His Worship reserved his deci don, and intimated that he would give judgment in writing as soon as possible.