LIQUOR CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 September 1917, Page 6

LIQUOR CASES.

'' ■ BATCH BEFORE THE COURT. " QUICKLY DEALT WITH. A batch of over ."0 oases came before Mr. A. CrM;e, S.M„ at the New'Plymmidth .Magistrate's Court yesterday, in which the defendants were charged either with breaches of the anti-shouting War Regulation or with selling or supplying liquor to natives within a proclaimed area in contravention of the Licensing Act. In all the eases except one, however, the defendants, through their solicitors, pleaded guilty, and the list was got through (luring the forenoon, although his Worship deferred the imposition of penalties till the afternoon sitting. A LICENSEE'S LAPSE. Henry Mulholland, licensee of the Raliotu Hotel, was charged with having on the 10th July, and again on the 19th, of the same month, supplied liquor to a native named Huri Inia, and pleaded guilty to both charges.

Mr. A. H. Johnstone, who appeared for the defendant, said Mulholland had only recently taken over the Rahotu Hotel. He had been licensee of the same house some four years ago, but had left it and only went into it again on the 10th of July last. So far as the dates were concerned, Mulholland was uncertain, but he admitted that on two occasions he did allow Huri Inia to have some beer. There had been a considerable amount of drinking at Parihaka, and the native had been extremely importunate, and Mulholland had yielded to his entreaties. Since that time numerous applications had been made to him by Maoris for drink, but he had refused them all. Mulholland had held no fewer than ten licenses, and the only conviction against him was one by his Worship a week or two ago of an offence committed by his barman. The only evidence that could have been given in the present case was the unsupported statement of the Maori, but.the defendant would not go into the box and tell a lie. lie admitted supplying the liquor. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said it was a long time since he had felt that the defendant in a case was so strongly entitled to the consideration of the court as in the present instance. He (the subinspector) had had opportunities of inijuiringxinto Muiholland's career and discussing his conduct with the police in various districts, and it had been quite refreshing to find the nature of the character he bore, that he was truly a nfan among men as a publican. The offences he was now charged with he at once admitted; he had come forward and pleaded guilty, saving the expense of calling two witnesses. In conclusion he (the Sub-inspector) asked his Worship to give defendant whatever consideration he deemed fit.

His Worship said that considering the reputation of Mr. Mulholland and the high commendation of the police, it appeared that lie was one of the class of iiotelkeepers that should bo encouraged. Under these circumstances the Court would be justified in imposing a penalty of only £2 on each charge, with costs lis tid. MAORI OFFENDERS.

The following Maoris, for whom Mr. A. H. Johnston appeared, pleaded guilty to charges of selling liquor (whisky) at Parihaka. the police withdrawing alternative informations against tiiem for having "supplied'' the whisky: Wiwini Horo (3 charge-*). Iluria Inia (2 charges), l'akira Okeroa (3 charges), and Pera (1 charge). Joe Tanrakaka was charged with having on 18th June, at Parihaka, sold whisky to one Waka Stewart, and pleaded not guilty, Mr. Johnstone appearing on his behalf. From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared that Waka Stewart did not drink himself, and mas extremely anxious that the law prohibiting natives being supplied with liquor at Parihaka should be observed. Consequently he laid a trap for the defendant, who keeps a billiard saloon, induced him to give a shilling's worth of whisky to ano!Jic-r native, which he (Stewart) paid for a'nd immediately afterwards gave information to the police. The defence was a total denial of the sale, but his Worship entered a conviction. Mr. Johnstone, addressing the Court on the Parihaka cases generally, said there were five defendants, four of whom had pleaded guilty. He was not exactly familiar with what had taken place, but he understood that on 18th June there was a festival at Parihaka in memory of Te Kooti. Some days before that date the Maoris of the district began to assemble at Parihaka, and in accordance with their custom remained there for some days after the festival. While they 'were tiiere, a daughter of a chief named Turuturu Wharepouri died and a tangi was held. It seemed that in connection with the festivities anii the tangi a good deal of liquor was introduced into Parihaka, and it would be noticed that in all the cases in which the defendants had pleaded guilty they had sold the liquor to one another and in their own private houses. There were no previous convictions against any of the four As to Pera, she was a young married Maori woman, and had supplied tile liquor to her foster father, for love and without payment. As to Wiwini Horo, he was a successful farmer and a hard-working man, but like others of iiis race had been unable to withstand the temptations of the festivities. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said that at one time Parihaka was notorious for sly grog-selling, but. conditions had improved .until some months ago, when monthly meetings of the natives were inaugurated. At these meetings liquor was introduced, and there did not seem to ( be apy difficulty in obtaining it. On the occasion in question the fun was fast and furious, and there was plenty of liquor. They resorted to various means of supplying each other with whisky ; in one instance it was poured out of a teapot. They seemed to have used the whisky freely and were not altogether particular as to its quality, altliough in one case a native had complained of whisky supplied to him having too much water in it, and went away to where he could get stronger stuff. It ■was true that the defendants did not misbehave themselves in so far as damjaging property was concerned, but it was desirable that something should be done, to prevent the introduction of .liquor into the district. His Worship asked if there was any likelihood of it being stopped. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said lie did /lot know what chances there were of it ■|,>eiug definitely stopped, but if EuroipeVns would only realise the harm H did the .Maoris and would make an honest ipfi'ort to comply with the law the difficulty woilM -be greatly lessened. His Worship said what was wanted was to get at the source from which the liquor w«S

Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said tho natives would not divulge the names of the persons from whom they obtained the liquor. Ho might say that information had come into his hands recently of a very serious case ami proceedings would certainly have been taken against a supplier, but unfortunately tile three ■ months limit had expired by a few days. Information at his disposal showed nati ;es obtained liquor from licensees and even from brewer*. His Worship, after taking time to consider the various on their merits, said it appeared that since tho inauguration of tile Maori gatherings at Parihaka on the 18th of every month there had been a recrudescence of illicit dealing in liquor The defendants in four of the cases had pleaded guilty and there were no previous convictions against them, but at the same time he had decided to impose substantial penalties nvith a view to checking if possible, the illicit practice. He thought he would be justified, however, in imposing one penalty only on each of the defendants, recording convictions without fines on the other informations.

The following fines were imposed:— Horo, £ls. costs £-2 9s 4d; Huri Inia, £lO, costs £2 9s 9d; Pakira Okeroa, £ls, costs £2 9s 9d; Joe Tamahaka £l£ costs £3 4s 3d; Pera £3, costs £1 log 3d.

ANTI-SHOUTING CASES. The following defendants pleaded guilty to charges of shouting and receiving liquor shouted by others at the Waitara Hotel, Waitara. on August 2nd:— Frank Rattenbury, 11 charges (Mr. J. H. Quilliam); Robert Grimmer, three charges ('Mr. Quilliam), Harold Henry Mehrten, 11 charges (Mr. C. R. Stead, Waitara) and J. A. Moore nine charges (Mr. Quilliam). Mr. Quilliam said all the charges were in connection Witli the same occasion, had come to Waitara after being tour months a'way for the purpose of undergoing medical examination for medical service, which he failed to pass, and had with him a sum of about £3B. He had travelled all day long, and had lad three drinks at Urenui on his way. On arriving at the Waitara Hotel lie joined the others and there was no doubt tliey had shouted for each other. Later on Moore lav down in a bedroom and when he woke he found his trousers had been taken from under his pillow and that his money, evcept a few shillings, Mas gone. Moore was a man with a clean record, and on being rejected by the military authorities had returned to his work at Wahakatino. As to Grimmer, lie had gone into the hotel by himself to get a glass of beer and had been called over to join the others in consequence of a dispute as to identification. Rattenbury had been before the court before and His Worship had been assured that he would leave the district. He had left the'district but found it necessary to pay a visit to Waitara to sell a launch. He was highly phased with the result of the sale and determined to celebrate the occasion. Thei„ ms no doubt the defendants shouted for each other. Of course in doing so tliev had broken the law and would have to pay the penalty, but they had followed a long-standing custom, and like many people regarded the present restrictions as arbitrary. Mr. Stead said he could add but little to what Mr. Qnilliar,-, said. He Could only further urge that Mehrten had only one leg and it was difficult for him to earn a living. Ilis Worship might take that into consideration in fixing the penalty. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said the men met in the hotel and a cheque was cashed for Moore by "White, the licensee, after which shouLing appeared 10 have commenced and continued for the whole time they were in the hotel in the old recognised way with the. notel-;;eeper joining in. The unfortunate part for Moore was that while he slept later in the evening he was relieved of something like £3B, all that he had. Rattenbury was the only one who had given the police any trouble, and gave all the trouble he could. He was the only one, too, with a previous record. The circumstances pointed to the fact that in tho hotel where this occurred there had not been the slightest attempt to give ellect to the war regulations, but. he was not in a position to say what, if any, proceedings were likely to be taken against the licensee. Ilis Worship, in delivering judgment, said he thought lie would be justified in taking into consideration the fact that Moore had lost nearly £lO. As in the Parihaka eases he intended inflicting substantial penalties, but as in those cases he would only impose a fine on one charge in each ease, merely convicting without penalty on each of the other informations.

The fines imposed were as follows, the costs being 7s in each case: —J, A. Moore £l2, Robert Grimmer £5, Frank Rattenbury £25, H. H. Mehrten £ls. As in the Parihaka cases His Worship allowed the defendants one month in which to pay the fines.