THIRSTY AWAKINO.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 159, 22 November 1912, Page 6

THIRSTY AWAKINO.

HOW SUPPLIES ARE OBTAINED. , lIOTELKEEPERS HEAVILY FINED. ■ Allegations of having sent liquor into a prohibited area (Awakino) were preferred against three Waitara hotel-keep-ers. 1 lie casus are -a. sequel tu the conviction, some weeks ago, of two residents of Awakino on charges of sly-grog selling, The first defendant was .Mrs. Kate Jury (licensee of the Club Hotel, Wai■tara) and she was charged that on or about August 20, 1912, she did unlawfully send 20 gallons of beer to F. Carrington, residing at Awakino—a prohibited area —''then having reasonable ground to suspect that such liquor was intended to be sold within such area." She was further charged on two similar counts. The dates of the last two alleged offences were August 30 and September 27, and the quantity of liquor 10 gallons of beer and two gallons of whisky, respectively. F. Carrington. was the person supplied in each case. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all three charges. Mr. G. Grey appeared for Mrs. Jury. Senior-Sergeant Iladdrcll prosecuted. C'onstabel Warneford, lately stationed at Awakino, and now at Hawera, said that there was considerable drunkenness in Awakino when he was stationed there, about the time the liquor was received.

The defendant next gave evidence. She said that on the date mentioned in the information she had sent 20 gallons of beer to F. Carrington. That was the first time she had supplied him. On August 1 she sent the same man 10 gal- 1 lons of beer and two gallons of whiskey, and on September 27 two gallons of whisky. Certain mention had been made in Court about W. Carrington. She had no idea that he was the son of F. Carrington. She had no idea that there had been any drunkenness at Awakino about the time the liquor was received. The three consignments of liquor mentioned had all been forwarded strictly according to the provisions of the Act. She never imagined that the liquot which she supplied to Carrington was being used for the purposes of sale. She I had been in Waitara 15 months, and neither the police nor anyone else had

intimated to her that Carrington was receiving liquor in excess. The beer was supplied in bottles, ten gallons going to a case. She did not know anything about the circumstances of Carrington. Two gallons of whisky made twelve bottles. This meant that the man to whom it was supplied only consumed half a bottle of-whisky a day. She had now sold out of the hotel. To Senior-Sergeant Haddrell: It was quite true that she sent 10 gallons of beer to W. Carrihgtoh, and within ten days later 10 gallons of beer and two of stout. She did not then know anything about W. Carrington. When she got the order repeated within twelve days she did not make any enquiry as to his identity. On August 20 a supply was sent to F. Carrington. She did not know that lie' was any connection o\ W. Carrington's. She thought that the reason why the order was repeated so quickly was that Carrington was

LAYING IN SUPPLIES FOR THE FUTURE. She sometimes got orders for tlie liquor direct, and sometimes through a third party. The fact that she received two orders in the same handwriting only under different names " did not tend to arouse her suspicions that the liquor was being supplied for the purpose of sale. She did not know that in getting orders for liquor from Carrington that it was received by message or by telephone. She did not tjthink the amounts were excessive.

This closed the case for the police. In his address, Mr. Grev contended that the defendant did not "have reasonable grounds to believe" that the liquol was to be used for the purposes of sale. He saw nothing excessive at all in the quantities, for if a man imported liquor into Awakino it meant A BEAN FEAST FOR HIS FRIENDS. Where men lived under , such conditions as prevailed in a prohibited area like Awakino, it was only human nature that when they did obtain Liquor they consumed much larger quantities than men in a town, say, like New Plymouth, where a person could walk into a hotel and obtain a drink. The Magistrate said that, as to the first charge, there was nothing,to show that the first order was known by the licensee to be for the, purposes of sale. If she had no reasonable grounds to think that the second supply was for sale, she might presume the .same of the third supply. The whole case hinged on the second supply.. , It was true that liquor might be distributed in bottles amongst a man's friends, but the point was whether Mrs.,: Jury thought the liquor was for sale. On the whole, Mrs. Jury had not satisfied him on the point. The excessive .quantities ordered, combined with the fact that she had received two different;orders in the same handwriting ied him to assume that. A conviction must be entered up. On the second charge he inflicted a line of £ls, merely entered a conviction in the third, and dismissed the first information. MORE LIQUOR FOR " CARRINGTON."

.John Harrington, proprietor of the Masonic Hotel, Waitaru, was similarly charged. In his case two gallons of whisky wore sent to F. Carrington, at Awakino.

He was defended by Mr. A. H. Johnetone, and pleaded not guilty. ' Senior-Sergeant Haddrell prosecuted, and said that there was only one charge against the defendant. .The quantity sent was two gallons, and the clerk of the Court had been duly informed of the supply of the liquor to Carrington. The defendant was charged with supplying liquor on August 0, but prior to that date he had supplied Carrington with liquor on the following dates:—May 10, two gallons of whisky; 21st, two gallons whisky; 23rd, two gallons whisky and ten gallons beer; June 22, two gallons whisky; 29th, two gallons whisky; July 5, two gallons whisky. The onus was thrown on the defendant to prove that be did not think the liquor was likely to be used for the purposes of sale. Mr. Johnstone submitted that the evidence regarding the former sales was inadmissible. There was no charge made regarding the previous supplies. If they constituted a breach of the Act, why had the defendant not been charged? Instead, he was charged with only one offence. Senior-Sergeant Haddrell explained that the time allowed to prosecute had elapsed. Addressing his Worship, counsel said that the quantity sent immediately previous to the date of the offence was sent exactly five weeks before. Then he sent only two gallons. The only reasonable grounds for suspecting that the liquor was for sale were—(l) The quantity sent; (2) the proximity of the (late of ihe sale. Tn the ease in point, however, only two gallons had been sent in five weeks. lie. asked that.the case be dismissed. Interrupting counsel, the Magistrate ! remarked that it seemed hardly prohable that Carrington would purchase such large quantities for the purpose of TREATING THIRSTY FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. His suspicions ought to have been aroused by the previous orders. To take the isolated sale would be nothing, but to couple it with the previous sales in-

ferred Unit !ii> must have known that the liquor was not intended for ii bona fide purposes. Counsel contended Dint the whole position was due to ignorance. The Magistrate said that there was no suggestion of moral wrong, b-.it hotelkeepers knew Die risk they were running if they did not take proper precautions to ascertain if the liquor were for private consumption or for sale. Counsel went on to state that there was not a til lie of evidence to show that this particular liquor was intended to be sold. Taking into account the sales prior to the date of the offence contained in the information, Mr. Crooke said that a conviction must be entered. The Legislature had imposed on men supplying liquor to a prohibited district the onus of satisfying the Court that they had 110 reasonable grounds to believe that it was not intended for bona fide purposes. The defendant was lined £ls, with costs £2 Ids. ANOTHER CASE. Two similar charges wera preferred against Alex. Kerr, licensee of the Waitara Hotel, Waitara. In each case the man supplied was A. J. Morton, of Awakino. Mr. G. Grey appeared for the defendant. Senior-Sergeant Haddrell appeared for the police, and said that the facts were a repetition of those in the previous cases. In all Kerr had supplied Morton with two gallons of whisky on each of the following dates: —May 2, 17 and 31, June 14 and 28, July 12, August 23, and September 11. It was with respect to the last two dates that the informations had been laid. Morton was AN ABSTEMIOUS MAN, and yet in spite of that he had continued to procure large quantities of liquor. Constable Warneford, lately stationed at Awakino, said that in May last there had been a lot of drinking at Awakino. Morton was a steady man, although he drank occasionally. Morton, who was a blacksmith, used to receive large quantities of liquor. Morton had been convicted and fined for keeping liquor for sale. To Mr. Grey: Eight or ten men had been convicted, for drunkenness during the last twelve months. It was a common thing for workingmen to share a case of liquor with their fellows. Kerr gave evidence on his own behalf, stating'that he had no means of knowing that the whiskey was being supplied for sale. Had he had any suspicion he would not have forwarded the liquor. There were plenty of men who drank A BOTTLE OP WHISKY A DAY. They did not know they consumed a whole bottle because they were not limited to that quantity. Kerr added that he had refused numerous applications for liquor in cases where he had reason to suspect that it was not intended for bona fide purposes. To Senior-Sergeant Haddrell: He was just about as careful as he could be in sending liquor to Awakino, and there were times when he had to use his own discretion. Mr. Grey contended that the quantity of liquor supplied was not unreasonable. Kerr had exercised very careful superI vision, and his books recording the sales were model. Counsel urged that the i previous sales had no bearing on the case. The Magistrate said that it was rather absurd to contend that the large quantities of liquor purchased by Morton I were not sufficient to put the licensee on his guard. In this case he would impose a fine of £lO on the first information. On the second information he merely entered a conviction. Costs amounting to £2 13s lOd were allowed.