LAW AND POLICE.

Southland Times, Issue 951, 15 May 1868, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

- Under this heading happUy we have to report but a few ordinary transactions durina the month. This may be attributed in a great measure to the efficiency of our pohce force, and also to the general orderly and peaceful conduct of the inhabitants. In the Resident Magistrate's Court on Monday last, 11th inst., the owners of sundry htray horses and pigs were severaUy fined, in the usual amounts. A man named Taylor, recently cook on board the James Paxton, sued the master, Captain Greig, for £12 10s, balance of wages due at the time the plaintiff was dismissed, and for a simUar amount as compensation in lieu of a month's notice. It appeared that Taylor, who had previously conducted himself orderly enough, on a recent occasion, when the schooner was discharging cargo at Riverton, had behaved, on being requested to perform some special duty, in a manner bo Uke insubordination, *jhat he was dismissed on the spot. The defendant admitted the balance of wages, and expressed himself ready to hand it over, as he had previously offered to do to the plaintiff; but did not consider himself liable for the sum claimed in Ueu of notice. The Resident Magistrate considered the conduct proven against plaintiff justified his instant discharge, and gave judgment for the balance of wages only. Two other small debt cases — Shepherd v. Henderson, and WUd v. Mortlock — in which the parties beUed each other wifch Uttle compunction or deUcacy, were decided — the first in favor of defendant, and the latter, a claim for £7 lent, in favor of plaintiff, for £2. In the Resident £ Magistrate's Courfc on Thursday, 14th inst., Mr R. C Spencer appeared to a charge of having had in his possession, on premises owned by him in the rear of the Exchange BuUdings, an unUcon9ed still, or apparatus for the purpose of distiUation, contrary to the provisions of the "DistiUation Act." The apparatus waa seized some time ago by the authorities, and the case on its first hearing was postponod untU the day named, for the production of witnessses, who were at a distance. Mr. Macdonald appeared as prosecuting counsel. Mr Harvey acted for the defendant. Mr Macdonald having recapitulated the circumstances of the seizure, and stated the legal points for the prosecution, intimated the nature of the evidence he intended to produce, aud then caUed Edward Hargin, plumber and coppersmith, who deposed that he had some knowledge of stills ; that he had made from a drawing brought fco him, an apparatus something similar to the one in question, but of much smaUer dimensions, which had also been seized at Stewart's Island, (both contrivances were temporarily fixed up outside the courthouse.) He did not, however, know for what purpose it was intended. He had afterwards heard that it was to be used for distillation, but would not undertake to say that either it or the larger implement, the issue in j the present- case, was in reality a sfcUl; he could mot teU, in fact-, unless he saw it fitted up and at work. The evidence of the next witness, Hugh Graham, a partner of the last witness, was of precisely a simUar character. He had seen sfcUls made, and assisted afc their manufacture, as also seen them in operation, but he had. never seen one Uke either of those outside the Court. He did not think the large one could be used as a still, but might be as a condensing apparatus. Ih reply to Mr Harvey, the witness stated he had never seen spirits made ; he had- seen the apparatus used for hermetically sealing up preserved fish in tins, but they differed from the machine outside. Donald Ross, photographer, had a general idea of what a stiU was Uke, but knew nothing of distiUation, and could nofc teU whether the machine in question, was a stiU or nofc, unless he saw it at work in a disfciUery. He had seen water distilled, but not spirits. Dr Deck was acquainted with chemical distiUation. He had examined the apparatus outside, and had not the slightest doubt about its being a stiU. In reply to Mr Harvey, witness said-he had nofc seen any worm belonging to it, but beUeved it could produce spirits in its present state, though rather wastefuUy. He had seen spirits manufactured with simUar contrivances. He was not acquainted with the process of preserving fish in tins. Capt. EUes, CoUector of Customs, had received a letter from defendant after the seizure of the stUl, claiming it as his property, and demanding that ifc should be returned fco fche place from whence ifc was taken. The witness knew nothing of stUls or distiUation. To Mr Harvey: Witness said he had known defendant for eight or nine years j for three years Spencer had acted as a Custom House agent, in which position he was under security fco the extent of £200 ; and any irregularity or impropriety in the discharge of his duties would have resulted in tho forfeiture of his Ucense. He had, however, never done . anything to cause the withdrawal of his Ucense, but he had aUowed it to lapse about December last. James Burgoyne, carter, had heard of the seizure at the time it took place, but had no conversation of importance with Spencer about it. Spencer had merely mentioned to him that it was an apparatus for steaming flax. To Mr Harvey : I was in possession of the stables where the machine was seized. It was not concealed in any way : the pipes were hung up on the beams, and the rest laying about. Plenty of people were continuaUy coming in and out. Couldn't Bay how long it had been there. He had seen it when he first occupied the premises, some three months ago. Mr Harvey, iv opening the case for the defence, held that the case, as against defendant, ought to be dismissed, on the ground that the clause of the Act under which the information was laid clearly intimated that action was to be taken against the person in the occupation of any premises in which such apparatus might be found, and he contended that it had been shown that Spencer was not the occupier of the stables in question, but that they were in possession of other parties. Mr M'Donald pointed oufc that, in accordance wifch the Justices of Peace Act, the Bench had power to amend an information when evidence in a case showed a variance between the facts of the case itself and the terms of the information, and contended that defendant having claimed the apparatus impUed that he was, to some extent at least,;in occupation of the premises on which it was seized, unlesß it could be shown that he had let the stiU along with the premises. His Worship then directed the necessary amendment to be made in the information, viz., from in fche " occupation of" to " had in his possession," &c. Mr Harvey, continuing, reviewed the cviI dence of the witnesses for the piosecution, and stated that the apparatus had been imported many years ago • that it had lain in the Custom-house lat the Bluff fbr a considerable time ; that ij had

then been pubUcly carted up to town aud placed where it was found, without any attempt at conojalment • and that it was intended for a purpose totally different from distillation. He further contended that it had never been used for the manufacture of spirits, nor could be used ih its \ present state j and that it was not likely that : ; so expensive an affair was going to be sent out here in so imperfect a Btate, had it been intended for distilling. He was of opinion that the Act meant that a complete apparatus must be found before prosecution could take place, otherwise many common ufcensUs — such as boilers, piping, zinc oases, &c. — might be deemed part of a stiU, and their possessors prosecuted for having them. It Bhould, in such caseß, be clearly shown that the machine seized was manufactured j£for the purpose of producing spirits, and that it was adapted to the purpose. He would caU witnesses who would prove that, the apparatus in question was one employed in the process of preserving fish, Jin hermetically sealed tins, and submitted that the Benoh should hear the defendant's explanation of the operation. Mr Macdonald objected to defendant being aUowed fco make any sfcafcemeat he being represented by CouncU, but the objection was overruled and Spencer then, with the aid of some photographs, explained the uses of the machine in fish curing, after which T. Meadows was called and deposed to having been at one time in possession ofthe stables in which the stiU was, and to having seen it laying about quite openly.- John Ross, carter, whose manner iv giving his evidence provoked uncbntroUable mirth, deposed to being joint occupant of the stables wifch Bourgoyne, and to having seen the stUl ■ there open to the gaze of every one entering the premises. H. Jaggers had been employed some time ago to make a number offish tins for defendant. He (witness) had seen stills made but never one Uke the machine outside. Henry Leigh had been in the employment of defendant at one time, neVer carted up the stiU outside from the Bluff that he knew of. He had brought up some large cases in December 1867. Burgoyne being ie-caUed, stated in reply to the Bench, that when he took possession of the stable, defendant's things were in it, and that he (defendant) might have had them any time he liked. Tne Resident Magistrate said he considered it proven that the apparatus was a stiU. Hargin and Graham were evidently very unwilling witnesses, but he held Dr Deck's, evidence to be conclusiVe. The defence had been set up that it was intended for curing fish ; no doubt it might be used ior that purpose, but from its construction, could easUy be converted into a still, and was of proportion sufficient to defraud the revenue to an enormous extent. The penalty in Buch cases was very severe — nothing less than £50, or exceeding £500, being the Umits of the fines exactable ; but he would, take into consideration the fact, that concealment had not been attempted^and also that there might be something in the defence. He would therefore inflict the Ughtest penalty aUowed — £50 fine, and costs £10, the stiU itself being also, of course forfeited.