Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SLY-GROG SELLING.

STIFF FIXES IMPOSED. I'KH I'HESS ASSOCIATION. Wellington", January 29. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Dr. McAvthur, S.M., William Clark and Edward Barrett, proprietors of a cafe, were charged on three separate informal ions with having sold beer without being licensed to do so. Kyidencc was given for the prosecution to show that a party of probationary constables visited f he cafe on three successive nights, and while having supper were supplied with bottled beer at Is (id a bottle, by the waitress. One night they purchased a bottle to take away. All the visits were paid after 10 o'clock, at which hour the hotels close. A day or two after the place was searched by the police, who found two dozen bottles full of beer, and .seventy-live empty bottles.

For the defence Violet. Baton, tins waitress, deposed Unit she had iuHtructions from her employers not to supply liquor alter ten o'eloek at night. It was her custom to send out for liquor reiiuired by men visiting the restaurunt. She knew that defendants had liquor on the premises, and granting a favour to the witnesses for the prosecution, told them she would get a bottle if they did not say anything to the boss. Clark did not know that, witness had taken the liquor until making up his books subsequently, when he found that a bottle had not been aecounted for. He asked witness if she sold it and she said "yes." He then asked how much she got forit and she replied, " One and sixpence." To this he added: " You can have that; don't do it again." His Worship said he had no hesitation in saying that the liquor was sold and that he could not believe the girl's evidence. Each defendant would be lined £25 and 3s fid costs, in default one month's imprisonment. Counsel for the defence; applied to have (he fine reduced to 625 for both defendants, but His Worship refused to do this. Wilful perjury had been committed by the witness for lli<: defence. He also refused to grant bail to defendants. Counsel said his clients had no money. His Worship: Well, they must go to gaol.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19060130.2.6.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8040, 30 January 1906, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
364

SLY-GROG SELLING. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8040, 30 January 1906, Page 2

SLY-GROG SELLING. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8040, 30 January 1906, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert