LIQUOR CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1917, Page 6

LIQUOR CASES.

'ANOTHER BATCH BEFORE THE COURT. ... LICENSEE FINED. At the New 'Plymouth S.M. Court yesterday Moari Whcrehoka, a Mpori, was charged with having at Parihaka, on July 13, sold whisky to three natives, three alternative informations charging him with supplying the liquor. The defendant .pleaded guilty to each of the charges of selling, and Inspector McIlveney withdrew the others. Mr. A. :H. Johnstone, who appeared for the defendant, stated that this was really one of the batch of eases dealt with last Thursday, when another native was fined for having jointly offended with the present defendant. Moari happened to foe in Wanganui at the time the other summonses were served. He received word from a friend that a summons was out against him, and on coniI hig to Xew Plymouth went to the police to be served.

Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said the police had been chasing the defendant for about three weeks in 6rder to serve the summons, he baring bolted from Parihaka as soon as he heard proceedings were being taken. As a matter of fact this man was the recognised leader of the liquor movement in Parihaka. and the Xative whose name had been coupled with his on the previous ■ occasion was his servant, and was charged with aiding and abetting. His Worship imposed a penalty of £ls, with £6 10s costs.

WAK REGULATION BREACHES. Cliarlcs George White, licensee of the Waitara Hotel, Waitara, was charged with eleven breaches of the anti-shouting provisions of the War Regulations, Nine of the informations, alleged that on August 2 he permitted John Andrew Moore". Frank Rattenbury, and Harold H. Meiirten to "shout" for each other and for Robert Grimmer, on his licensed premises, and two that he personally "shouted" for the men named. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the defendant and pleaded guilty on his behalf. He presumed eleven informations had been laid because of the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Edwards in a Wellington case, but they really all referred to only one occasion. The men had met in the hotel and 'been together for a brief period, when they shouted for each other and for Grimmer, who had come in at the tail end. These men had appeared before the court on the previous Thursday and had pleaded guilty to charges of "shouting." and now the licensee was charged with having (permitted them to do so, and also >with having personally . '•shouted" for them. As for the latter two charges,' Mr. White would say that he had not treated the men, although li», when attending to other customers, had left a bottle of whisky on the counter before them and they might have helped themselves. Crnder these circumstances he (counsel) would have had some reluctance in pleading guilty to his client personally treating the men, but they had stated that he did. The bar was an unusually large one, and the licensee had probably been unable to exercise the supervision that ought to have been ' exercised. He (Mr. Johnstone) submitted that the whole thing was practically one transaction, and said he hoped that one conviction would be sufficient, instead of it going abroad for all time that defendant had been convicted eleven times. He also asked that the defendant, be dealt with as leniently as possible, as largely he had been victimised by men who seemed to have no respect for the law. Sub-Inspector Mcllveney said he did not ask for more than one penalty, but it was his duty to ask for a conviction in each case. As to the men convicted on the previous Thursday, and on whose statements the present informations had been laid, they were honest, hard-work-ing men, whatever their fondness might or might not be for drink. His Worship said the defendant had pleaded guilty to each of the eleven charges, and therefore, must be convicted on each, although only one penalty would be imposed. The licensees in this district could not now be unaware of the risks they ran in permitting "shoutling," although it did not seem to him to be morally worse for a man to treat his friend to a drink than to treat him to a cup of afternoon tea. Of course, that was only looking at it morally; legally, one was an offence and the other was not. He had noticed from the morning paper that the first cases of the kind in Pahiatua had been heard yesterday. Sub-Inspector Me-Uveney said that was so, afcd then the convictions had been obtained on the evidence of plain clothes constables acting as spies. In this district no informers or spies had been employed, nor had an indemnity been ask"«d for any witness, and in every" case the offender had been punished. Probably in no other court in New ZealAnd had so many offenders of this class, no matter who they were, been dealt with so fairly and with such even justice. 1 His Worship .said he would convict on all the charges, reserving the question of penalty on one of them until two other informations against the same defendant had been heard. Subsequently his Worship imposed a penalty of £ls, with costs £9 13s Bd. FURTHER CHARGES.

Charles George White, licensee of the Waitara Hotel, Waitara, was further charged with having on August 2nd (1) permitted the drunkenness of one John Andrew Moore on his licensed premises and (2) supplying liquor to Frank Batteiibnry. si person already in a state ol liquor. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charge? and Mr. A. H. Johnstone pppeared on his behalf. In his evidence Rattonbury denied having been drunk on the occasion in question and other witnesses called for the police stated that although he (Battenbury) showed signs of having had some liquor he was quite able to take care of himself.

Acting-detective Fitzgibbon was called and said that on August 3rd liattenbury had made a statement to the effect that he had no clear recollection of what had taken place on the previous afternoon because he had taken too much liquor. As to .John A. Moore, the evidence was to the effect that he had had a number of drinks in the hotel p.i'ter having arrived from a long journey, |and had been so affected that he dej clined to have tea, but asked to be Ukown to a bedroom where he went to ! sleep. The defendant, on oath, denied that either Rattenbury or Moore was drunk when served with liquor, although he admitted that they showed signs of having "had a few." They were not sober Jbut thejr w«« not drunk, and if ufc«d

defendant would still have supplied them with liquor. His Worship said that with regard to supplying Rattenbury when drunk the evidence of the police witnesses was to the effect that the man was capable of taking care of himself. There was Uattenbury's own statement to the police that he had no clear recollection of what had taken place, but as against that the possibility was that his mind was at the time directed to an allegation of theft against him and not to the drinking and shouting business. It would not be fair under the circumstances to take his statement as showing that he was drunk. The charge of supplying Ratten'bury while drunk would therefore he dismissed. As to the other charge of permitting drunkenness, it was on quite a different footing. It was clear that Moore had arrived from a long journey, had had nothing to eat from six o'clock in the morning, had a considerable number of drinks, and became ill, afterwards declining food and goin<* to a bedroom. It seems quite clear that Moore was intoxicated. White would be convicted on that information and fined £3 with costs £9 Is Sd.