Juggling With Liquor Laws

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 137, 31 August 1927, Page 12

Juggling With Liquor Laws

WHO “RECEIVED” THE LIQUOR?

BLACKMAN NOT GUILTY (From Our Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, To-day. A CASE of this nature simply went to show that nothing was more demoralising in the country than a law which was regarded with contempt and led to underhand dealing, hypocrisy and deceit. These words were used bv Air. Justice Herdman in the course of his address to the jury in the case in which James Blackman was charged with allegedly keeping liquor at Taumarunui for illegal sale. The case was concluded at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, and accused found not guilty. Opening the case for the defence, Air. J. F. Strang said Blackman had been twice convicted for the offence on his own frank admission, but he suggested that accused had not been associated witli liquor-selling since the date of the second conviction in 3 926. That the cases contained liquor there was no doubt, but none had been proved to have gone into the possession of accused, and how could he be charged with keeping liquor for sale? The view to be taken of the matter hinged on the interpretation of “keeping the liquor for sale.” Goods on the railway were in the custody of the Minister until delivered, and counsel’s contention was that the police took delivery, the liquor never passing into the possion of accused. Air. H. T. Gillies, for the Crown, considered that accused had entered into physical possession of the liquor, and the provisions in the Railways Act did not apply. William James Blackman, the accused. stated that he had received no liquor for sale purposes since August, 3926. A DIFFICULT CASE “This case is an extraordinary one and a difficult one too,” commented his Honour in his address to the jury. Accused was charged with the offence that on February 8 in Taumarunui, n prohibited area, he did keep liquor for sale. The evidence on which the Crown relied was mainly that of the carrier Baker, who told a remarkable story. Baker was engaged at $ 1 a trip to do work for which the ordinary fee was 2s or 3s. and took to the Auckland station false consignments of chemicals which turned out to be liquor, and 15 or 20 such instances had been proved by the Crown. It was difficult to accoxint for that. A case of this nature simply went to show that nothing was more demoralising in the country than a law which was regarded with contempt, and led to underhand dealing, hypocrisy and deceit. The telegram was evidently dispatched to accused when the Auckland man “got wind” of the fact that the police were interesting themselves in the contents of the cases. The question the jury had to decide was whether or not accused could be said to have kept liquor for sale. His Honour thought the charge referred to the keeping of this particular liquor for sale and not to a general practice. There might be a strong suspicion, but did Blackman actually keep the liquor for sale? To do that he must first have taken possession of it. It might be argued that it was in accused's hands when it was taken over by the carrier-agent at Auckland, but if .that was so, then it had not been kept for sale in a prohibited district. His Honour said he did not care to disregard altogether the clause in the Railways Act relating to consignees. The liquor had never been in the actual physical possession of accused, and could it be said the liquor had been kept for the purposes of sale? The difficulty to a large extent was a legal one, but His Honour felt bound to advise the jury that in the circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult to hold it to have been proved on the evidence called that accused had kept liquor for sale on February 8, 1927, or to consider the Crown case technically proved. LEAVE TO APPEAL An application by Air. IT. T. Gillies to have the technical point in regard to possession argued by the Court of Appeal was granted. After a retirement of 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.