The R.M.'s Decision in the Shannon Sly Grog Gases.

Manawatu Herald, 19 May 1892, Page 2

The R.M.'s Decision in the Shannon Sly Grog Gases.

I have to give judgment in reference to eight charges of breaches of the Licensing Act, 1881, four of which are laid against C. M. Richards and four against Timothy O'Loughlin. Four of the charges are for selling liquor without a license and four for exposing liquor ; one, of the charges laid against O'Loughlin fer selling was withdrawn. One of the arguments used by Mr Baker for the defence I, to an extern, agree with, that tba "whole of the charges

may be described as one offence. The circumstances are unusual, and altogether different from any cases of selling without a license which have come before me before-. They are not the Case of persons spiling liquor for profit (except as I snail afterwards point out.) There were sports at Shannon and the committee arranged for a refreshment booth which was to be managed by the two defendants. The evidence of certain of the committee being, that they as a committee decided that no intoxicating liquor was to be sold at the booth — I think that must be held to be proved. .It is deposed to by the secretary, and the witness Hemmingsen says he proposed it and Bently seconded it and he gives the reasons. Ife is true the defendants deny hearing of the resolution, but they have entirely failed to show that any other of the committee, except the witness Hemmingsen, had anything to do with the procuring or the selling of the liquor, which I can have no doubt from the evidence was sold both at the booth, and at a ball held at the school-nouse in the evening. The defendant O'Loughliu procured the liquors, part from Pascoe the brewer, and part from his own hoiise — He says in his evidence that certain others of the committee directed him to procure it, but he is unable to remember or point out which of them it was. He then sent a claim to the committee for the liquor, but it has not been paid, as the account was stopped by the auditors. The learned gentleman appearing for the defence addressed me on the subject of exposing liquor for sale, which is part of the charge. lam not quite clear that the charges for exposing have been made put. There certainly was no display to induce people to buy, if that is the meaning of exposure, and I further think that if I hold the sale is proved, the conviction may rest on that, and the other charges may be dismissed. Part of the defence is that the liquor was procured for the committee and officers ot the sports only. Now, as to that, the majority of the committee did not want it, and the only persons who did are three Committee men, three judges and the reporters. The whole quantity ordered was eight dozen ale. The defendant O'Loughlin gays only four dozen were received. The evidence is not conclusive as to the quantity. There were also two bottles of brandy and four or five of whisky, the quantity of stuff renders it in highest degree improbable that it was intended for the committee. The charge of selling at the school - room heard last court day was proved against the defendant Bichards. Then the two charges to-day, one against O'Loughlin and one against Richards are also in my opinion clearly proved. It is ti'He the witness Hemmingsen appears to have sold to a greater extent than either of the defendants, but that does not, except perhaps to a limited extent, axcuse them. It does not seem necessary to enquire into Mr Baker's legal argument namely : — whether Hemmingsen could be held to have sold under the defendants order, and if so they are liable, because I hold it proved on the evidence of Korths, that the defendant O'Loughlin sold liquor himself 1 Deendant, O'Loughlin's own evidence was so unsatisfactory, from his ' prevarications and inconsistencies, as to render it impossible to place any reliance on what he says. The de* fendant Richards does not even deny the sale at the booth, If what he says is true it would not excuse him, it is still a sale ; but what he does say is not in accordance with the evidence of the witness.

I decide to convict on the three informations for selling liquor— two against defendant Richards and one against defendant O'Louglin. I think it proper to give consideration to Mr Baker's argument that the sale was not for the personal profit of the defendants. In the, Richards that appears to be absolutely so, — In the case of O'Loughlin that is not so clear. Further I think I should consider that O'Loughlih is the man who has caused the whole trouble. The evi» dence goes to show that no one but he knew anything about it until it was on the ground.