LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 August 1917, Page 7

LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY.

j ANOTHER CONVICTION. At the New Plymouth's Magistrates Court yesterday John Matheson was .barged with having, between July 2nd •>nd sth, kept whisky for sale at Awakino, a proclaimed area. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and Mr. D. Hutclii'ii appeared on lua behalf. ' Constable McGregor stated that on tlic ! evening of July 3rd lie. examined the l , mail coach at Mokau, anil found a case! nf whi-ky addressed to the defendant at: Awakino. Next ik-.y witness went tot Awakino and saw signs of drunkenness. He saw defendant, who admitted getting' tho east of whisky, but said it had all gone. Witness remarked that he must; have got rid of it quickly. Defendant: replied that there were three of them, in it, but that he had not supplied the naracs of tin: other two to the vendor, the hotelkeept-r at Urentii, as he did not think that necessary. He had simply l obtained the ■■'■'-4-v to pay 'jack some he had borrow,,i from the other two men, Messrs Hurring and Keppell. Foul bottles hM been consumed on his (dcr fondant's) premises. Matheson' denied having kept liquor for sale at any timo. Witness obtained statements from Mb. Hurring, Mr. Keppell, and Mr. E. K Battley, and then reported the matter.. To Mr. Eutchen:. Witness asked Mn Hurring if he had bought whisky from Mr. Matheson, and Bit. Hurrhig replied): '•'Of coursi I did, but you cannot) prow it." Mi. Keppell denied having at any . timo lent whisky to Mr,. Matheson, tut, said he had borrowed , the whisky, in. question from Matheson. Mr. Battfey: admitted getting two bottles of whisky,, hut .denied buying it. >fr. Battley had declined to sign his statement; saying that he did not wish to,be mixed up- ip.. the case. Mr. Ilutchcn submitted there was'no. evidence of sale or of keeping, for sal*,. but said he would call defendant to giVe. his version of what had taken pkce. John Matheson, the defendant, statqd that he had obtained the ease to discharge what he considered a debt of honor. He gave four bottles to Mr. Hurring, one bottle to Mr. Keppell; and one bottle to Mr. Battley. The rest had, been drunk by himself, and frifirfsi He had not at any time kept liquor for, sale. To Sub-Inspector Mcflveneyr On. June i) lie had cbtained six bottles of whisky, mid on Juno 14, another six lit addition to the ease which was the-sub-iect of the present proceedings. He'had thus spent £9 in whisky ilurinjr the'time specified. He had siven, the bottles to Mr Hurring and Mr. Keppell because ho considered ho owed it to tlietn. W was not tru- tliat Mr. Hurring had bought the whisky from the defendant.) This was all the evidence,

His Worship said the defendant had not shown that the liquor waa not kept for sale, and tln> onus was onhim. His evidence had been most contradictor}',and the statement that ho Imd bought the liquor because other men. had treated him and lie considered himself .bound to make some return had not been borne out by the statements of thesu men. It was scarcely credible that amnion, in defendant's position could afford to spend '£4 10s simply beeauro his friends- had. been him.- lie (his Worship) Could not accept the-defendant's statement, and therefore convicted defendant and fined him £2O with costs.

A BREEZE. Mr. Hutchen objected to costs being granted in respect of Mr. Waning, who, although subpoenaed, had not been called. Sub-Inspector Mellveney said that on hearing that .Air. Hnrring mast in town he had subpoenaed him, not intending to call him, but so that he would be available if the defence desired his- >vt dencc. Mr. Hutchen said lie did not believe the statement made by the Sub-Insppe-! tor--Sub -Inspect or Mellveney: I ask you tc withdraw that! It is most discourteous for a legal gentleman not to accept the statement of a prosecuting officer. Mr. HuteWu said he would not withdraw the Temark, because he did not. think tho Sub-Inspector's statement as to why Mr. Hnrring had. been subpoenaed was correct. Sub-Inspector Mellveney considered Mr. Hutc>n's remark most ungentlemanly, and asked the court to accept his assurance t&afc he had subpoenaed Mr. Hurting simply that he might be available if required by the defence. Had he not done so, having learned Mr. Hnrring was in town, and had he ejcpla-ined that he did. not require that, evidence, he might have been met with the statement that he should have had Mr. Hnrring there in case the defence or .Ids Worship, wanted him. His Worship said "her had not been aware that Mr. Hurriiuj's evidence had been available. It the. police did not want that geutiaraan as a witness they naetl not have subpoenaed, him : i£ tho defence wanted him they could have 1 donu so.

Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said the same thing was done in the Supreme Court, and ho had considered it hij duty to follow the practice. He did not .ask for Mr. Hurring's, expenses, aa he was, in town, but merely for the subpoena fee, 2s, which ho would rather pay himself than have a fuss about it. Mr. Hutchen said the Sub-Inspector had not informed him that Mr. Hurting would bo available, if required. His Worship remitted the subpoena, fius si>d toed the.costs at £i lis.