LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 June 1917, Page 6

LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

HEAVY FIXES INFLICTED. Several cases in which the defendants were charged with breaches of the law in taking liquor into a prohibited area in the 'Kin? Country were dealt with at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M. ADJOURNED. In tho case of 8. Granville, storeKeeper Marakopa, the charge against the defendant was that in May last he ordered a quantity of whisky from Goldwater Bros., of New Plymouth, Which was intended to bo taken into a prohibited area without notifying Goldwater Eros, that is was to be so taken. A second information charged Granville jointly with Joseph Friend Startup with having taken the whisky in question to Kawhia without Slaving the packages so labelled as to bliow the nature of their contents. Sub-Inspector Mclllveney said that in Granville's case the summons had not yet been served as the defendant had been absent from the district. He (the Sub-inspector) therefore had to ask for an adjournment. Mr. J. H. Quilliam appeared for Startup and said his client had written that the next boat did not leave Kawhia until July 3,. and he could not get here till then. Counsel suggested thafi the police might withdraw the connection against Startup as the charge could not possibly be substantiated. Sub-Inspector Mclllveney said he could not adopt the suggestion, but would agree to an adjournment. Mr, Quilliam:-1 think you'll be sorry after the case is heard. Both, cases were adjourned till July 6 at 11 a.m. \ DISMISSED. Lewis Clare and Arthur Gaylard, of Waitara, were cnarged with having assisted Startup in the above alleged offences. The Sub-Inspector said in these cases one of tho principal witnesses had joined the Reinforcements and was about to leave the Dominion. In the circumstances the police offered no evidence. The informations were dismissed. SELLING AND SUPPLYING. Leonard Old was charged with having on May sthj at Awakino, sold whisky to, Maoris named *Tohia Harawera, Waiherere, and Waitu, additional informations alleging in the alternative that he supplied the whisky to the Maoris named. The defendant, for whom Mr. J. B. Quilliam appeared, pleaded guilty of selling to Tohia Harawera, and supplying VVaiherere and Waitu, and the other informations were withdrawn. Sub-Inspector Mclllveney said that on the occasion in question, May sth, th% defendant was temporarily employed as mail car "driver, and on his arrival at Awakino in that capacity he had'ln the car several 'bottles of .whisky. Immediately after his arrival several Natives accosted him and Tohia Harawera asked if he had any whisky. Old replied in the affirmative, and produced a bottle .which Tohia took from him, tendering a £1 note, and receiving 7s 6d change, so that 12s 6d was charged for the whisky. Other Natives also got bottles and went to a house to dispose of the liquor. The defendant, it seemed, was not a drinking man, but his conduct on this occasion would suggest that he was under the influence of liquor, because later on- he went to Tohia and asked for the whisky back. Tohia refused and produced his change of 7s 6d as proof that ihe had paid for the bottle. Old made'a grab at the" money, and most of it somehow disappeared, all that remained to Totia out of his pound being Is 6d. He (the Sub-Inspector) considered it his duty to direct the Court's attention to the seriousnpss of these breaches of the law, stating that, although the local constable had obtained fourteen convictions in fi"e months, no material difference had been effected in the matter of slygrog, selling to the Natives. He asked the Court to impose a substantial penalty. He could not say that the defendant had been making a practice of this Mesial business, but he certainly had that reputation in the district. If there had been a previous conviction the Court would have had the po'wer to impose a tirm of imprisonment without the option of a fine, and this course he would have asked the Court to adopt. Mr. Quilliam submitted that the SirbInspector was not justified in imputing that the defendant was engaged in such a practice; if the police could prove such a thing they could iproceed against the defendant, if not they were not entitled, to make such observations. There was no reason whatever to believe that Old had toeen engaged in the practice referred to, and it would not be right to sacrifice him for the offences of others. He asked His Worship also to consider that this was a first offence, and further that the defendant had notified the police that he would plead guilty and thus had saved considerable expenses. The three offences occurred on the same day and were practically only one offence. His Worship said it was necessary that respect for the law should 'be enforced, and the imposition of small penalties seemed to be of no use, or to have an effect not sufficiently deterrent. The defendant would be fined £7 on each of the three charges, with costs totalling £!■ 10s. On tho application of Mr. Quilliam defendant was allowed a month in which to pay,, the Sub-Inspector offering no objection. ANOTHER CASE. .

William Hunt, for whom Mr. J. E. Wilson appeared, was charged with having on the 9th May taken into Mokau, part of a proclaimed district, six bottles of whisky, such bottles not having any labels or* other indication of their contents.

Mr. Wilson said he had been instructed by his client to plead guilty. The defendant was a man engaged in bushfalling, and was now at work on a contract some distance from Awakino, hence hiß non-attendance. He admitted taking into the proclaimed area six bottles of whisky in a bag, and also admitted that the bottles had no labels indicating their contents. By arrangement with the * sub-inspector it would be unnecessary to call any witnesses to prove the offence, and in all the circumstances counsel would ask his Worship to treat the case as one not calling for a severe penalty. He understood that when Hunt arrived' at Mokau with the bag containing the bottles of whisky some altercation took place, and that subsequently he was convicted of resisting the police and on other charges connected with the incident and severely punished. The defendant had taken the liquor to Mokau for his.own consumption, and it would appear that at the time he must have been under the influence of drink. Counsel had himself seenfhim in New Plymouth about that time) when he appeared .to have been drinking and scarcely to know what he was abnut-, xhe d»f«nd»nt was not an

unintelligent man, and must have known, if he had been in his sober senses, that the bottles ought to have been properly labelled. Sub-Inspector Mcllvcney said Hunt had six bottles of whisky in a bag with him in the mail car, in which he was a passenger. The car was met by a constable, who proceeded to search it for liquor. The constable'asked Hunt what the bag contained, and a3 Hunt hesitated the constable decided to have the bag opened before two witnesses. While the constable was conversing with the driver of the car Hunt seized the bag, took it back into the car, and refused to give it up to the constable or to state what it contained, The constable had to call for assistance, and during the ensuing incidents Hunt violently assaulted the constable, causing him somewhat severe injuries. For this assault Hunt had been convicted on various charges, and fines had been imposed totalling' about £ls. As to Hunt having been under the influencee of liquor at the time, he (the subinspector) had no information to that effect, "and presumably it would have been reported to him had it been true. He was sorry to say that during the short time he had been here the defendant's name had frequently been before him, but he could not say that Hunt had been previously' convicted on such a charge. His Worship said the circumstances connected with the assault had no direct bearing on the present charge, except that the fines imposed on Hunt might be considered in filing the penalty. The defendant would be convicted on his own plea of guilty and fined £lO, with costs lis. On the application of Mr. Wilson defendant was allowed fourteen days in which to pay.