LIQUOR SELLING CHARGES.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 502, 21 September 1912, Page 5

LIQUOR SELLING CHARGES.

A CONVICTION RECORDED. A STRAY PORTMANTEAU. At the Magistrate's Court on Thursday several persons were called upon to explain what they had dene with the liquor which they had brought to Te Kuiti in quantities. In the case of B. O'Sullivan and E. Poole, who were living together for a time, the former was charged with five offences under the Act, and the latter with one. Mr Finlay appeared for Poole and pleaded not guilty, and Mr Singer for O'Sullivan, who also entered a plea of not guilty. Constable Mathew, who conducted the prosecution, stated in evidence that on May 23rd O'Sullivan got in a case of whisky. On June 13th six bottles were got in by O'Sullivan who was living in the same house. Another case was got in for B. O'Sullivan on June 24th, and on July 17th the same person got in six bottles and ordered four bottles for a man named J. Murphy. On August 23rd, defendant got in six bottles, and on September 12th twelve buttles arrived in an unlabelled portmanteau belonging to defendant. The last consignment was impounded by the police. The portmanteau was over carried on the railway, and on it being returned from Wellinglton it was found to contain the liquor stated. On June 26th a case of whisky for a person named McLeod was also taken to O'Sullivan's house. On July Ist a case of whisky arrived at Te Kuiti for a man named Dwyer, That case had not been claimed, and witness suggested it was intended for O'Sullivan. On 29th the defendant Poole got a case of whisky, and on June Ist another case came for the same man. A case which came on July Ist for the same defendant was impounded by the police but was subsequently handed to defendant. Witness said the defendant O'Sullivan was in Auckland from May 27th till June 18th. Witness said when Poole came to him about the case which had been impounded witness told defendant he suspected that grog selling was going on in the whare. Poole said hu was not living there. It was getting too hot and he pulled out. With respect to the case on May 29th Poole was evidantly puzzled and witness showed him the order for it, which bore defendant's signature. Defendant said it looked like his signature. Witness had known Poole for about eight years and had never suspected him of selling grog. It appeared to him theie was always grog at the whare and many people were going backwards and forwards to the place. He never saw any insobriety. Witness said he had known the defendant O'Sullivan for over twelve months. Defendant had been about town a'good deal and had done very little work. He believed O'Sullivan had gone under the name of Dwyer and suspected the unclaimed case of whisky for Dwyer really belonged to defendant. At that time a large quantity of liquor was coming through to all sorts of names which were uncommon to wtinesa and which he believed to be fictitious.

Cross-examined fay Mr Singer, witness said with respect to the whisky ordered for Murphy he did not know Murphy had received the liquor at the railway station, signed for it and taken it away. He did not know exactly what amount of work defendant had done since Christmas. He did know defendant had trained his brother for chopping matches. He was aware that defendant and his brother had finished some bush felling contracts about Christmas. He knew defendant's brother had won some chopping matches. Mr Singer formally objected to the court records of liquor ordered as nut being evidence that the liquor specified had been received, but his Worship over-ruled the objection. Mr Finlay, in opening the defence for his client, claimed that as the case of whisky mentioned by Constable Mathew on May 29th was not charged against the defendant Poole in the information he would not require to answer for it. His Worship upheld this claim.

Mr Finlay said as far as hia client was concerned it was simply a casu of drinking rather much when living along with O'Sullivan. It was evident there was no co-partnership as all the liquor which came was sent to each individually. In respect to the charge against his client the matter was narrowed down to one case of whisky which was obtained 7/hile Poole was living with O'Sullivan. After June 13th Poole left the house, O'Sullivan then being in Auckland. During the time defendants were batching together O'Sullivan brought in one case and six bottles. O'Sullivan then went to Auckland and Poole remained in the house. He procured a case of whisky and was called upon to answer for it. He was known to be a competent workman and was always in employment. He was well known in the district, and there was no suggestion ti.at he was likely to sell liquor.

Mr Singer, in opening the case for the defendant O'Sullivan. said it could be whittled down conaideraly. The case of whisky received on May 23rd was in the house till the 25th when defendant and his brother returned from Ongarue sports. The liquor was drunk in celebration of a victory at the sports, Defendant went to Auckland on the 27th and remained away till June 18th. On June 27th defendant got a case cf whisky and on July 17th six bottles were brought in. The suggestion that unclaimed liquor for Dwyer was intended for somebody else the defendant was not called upon to answer. On August 23rd defendant obtained six bottles and on September 12th subsequent to proceedings being taken defendant's portmanteau was found to contain some twelve bottles of whisky. The case of whisky for McLeod was accounted for and it was only brought to the defendant's house because the board-

quently it was taken away from defendant's house by the owner. As to defendant not doing much work during the period specified counsel said that could be explained from the fact the defendant trained his brother for chopping contests during the season. Since then defendant had done considerable casual work while waiting for a bridge contract. The contract was now obtained and they were waiting ior the timbsr to be supplied. Counsel admitted the case might be one for enquiry, but submitted it could be fully explained. If a reasonably possible explanation were tendered he submitted it should be accepted as the burden of proof was thrown on the defence. For the defence E. Poole gave evidence as to what became of the whisky he had procured. He said he had never seen any liquor sold at the house.

Corroborative evidence as to the disposal of the liquor was given by a number of witnesses. J. Pitcon gave evidence as to carting a case of whisky for J, McLeod to defendant's house. The case was subsequently sent to the boarding house.

B. O'Sullivan gave evidence on his own behalf and bore out the story told by his counsel. In cross-examination by Constable Mathew witness said he had oniv brought back whisky with him on one occasion, when his portmanteau had been overcarried. There were twelve hottles of whisky in the bag. Seven bottles he had purchased and five had been given to him by Iriends he had met in Auckland. He had never gone under the name of Dwyer. His brother had done so once. He and his friends had drunk all the whisky he had procured. He had never sold liquor. J. Murphy gave evidence as to requesting defendant to send him four hottles of whisky. Witness had received the liquor from the railway station.

At this point Mr Singer said he could bring a number of people who had assisted to drink the liquor to corroborate defendant's story if his Worship thought fit. His Worship said it was unnecessary to produce evidence. The case against Poole was dismissed.

With reference to the other charges against O'Sullivan, Mr Singer said he had no further evidence to offer. The portmanteau was over carried on the railway. When defendant left Auckland the bag was labelled. Defendant admitted he had not given his name and address to the vendor when ordering the liquor. His Worship said, after carefully considering O'Sullivan's case he was satisfied liquor had been kept for sale. Defendant had not discharged the onus thrown upon him to explain. Men in his position who did little work did not order large quantities" of liquor to give away to their friends. There was considerable doubt as to whether defendant was not O'Dwyer. It was notorious that much liquor was obtained in fictitious names. The fact that there was not an overwhelming quantity of liquor obtained in defendant's name, did not remove suspicion. Defendant's action with respect to the portmanteau was suspicious, and his explanation of the whole transaction was unsatisfactory. He said he had purchased seven bottles of Walker's whisky and been presented with five separate bottles by friends. It was curious that in the bag were found only six bottles of Walker's and six bottles of another brand. Defendant would be convicted and fined £25 and costs for keeping liquor for sale. For giving an order for liquor to be taken to a proclaimed district without giving his name and address defendant would be fined £lO and costs. Constable Mathew applied for an order to destroy the liquor in the portmanteau. Mr Singer objected and pointed out that the bench had no power to make such an order ir, the case. His Worship upheld Mr Singer's contention.