ORDER FOR LIQUOR.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1921, Page 6

ORDER FOR LIQUOR.

CHARGE OF FORGERY. ~ A MOKAU CASE. A breach of the regulations governing the admission of liquor into a proclaimed area was alleged against Sydney Norman Fincham, storekeeper, of Mokau, in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when he was charged with forging an order foi two gallons of whisky purporting to be signed by J. Rhodes, and with uttering the same to C. J. O’Neill, licensee of the Urenui Hotel. The offence, it was alleged, was committed on August 2, 1921. Mr. Ft. H. Quilliam appeared for accused. For the prosecution Senior-Sergeant McCrorie explained that on the date mentioned the licensee of the hotel (O’Neill) received an order for two gallons of whisky signed by “J. Rhodes”. The liquor was despatched by ’bus on August (>, ale ng with some other lots, which included one addressed to Fincham. The accused took charge of the consignment addressed to him, and some others, including one for “Rhodes”, were put in a shed, —.iter the liquor in the shed was found to live been stolen, and in the course of investigations Constable Blaikie noticed a similarity between the handwritings in the written orders for liquor as sent by Finca iui and Rhodes. He interviewed Fincban, who refused to make a statement, and proceedings were then instituted. Cyril J. S. O'Neill, licensee of the Urenui Hotel, gave evidence as to receiving the orders, and said the liquor was sent in each case. The money accompanied the orders. He did not know Fincham at the time he got the orders, but had met him since. He knew the liquor was being sent into a proclaimed area. Duncan D. Macpherson, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Waitara, gave evidence as to receiving an. order from Fincham on August 25, and to despatching liquor as requested. Constable La Pouple took possession of the order later. SIMILARITY OF WRITING. Constable La Pouple gave evidence as to securing certain orders for liquor from the Masonic Hotel, Waitara, these being signed by Fincham. He considered the other one produced in court, and signed by “Rhodes” was identical with the others. To Mr. Quilliam: He was not an expert in handwriting, but had had twelve years’ experience -in connection with the detection of possible forgeries of orders for liquor. In this case there were a number of similarities in the handwritings in the various orders which led him to conclude that they were executed by the same person.

W. H. Robertshaw, manager of the Bank of Australasia, eaid he had examined the four orders, three of which were signed by Fincham and one by “Rhodes”. In witness’ opinion the body of the whole four of them were written by the same person. There were one or two notable similar-

To Mr. Quilliam: The papers were brought to him by the police, and he was asked if he thought the order signed "Rhodes” was a forgery of the other. He replied that he was not prepared to make a statement. On the question of handwriting he thought there was a general similarity about the handwriting which distinguished it. Evidence was given by Charles Rhodes, generally known as Joe Rhodes, who said he knew Fincham and had dealings with him. Witness did not sign the order produced, nor had he authorised anyone to sign it. On August 6 witness was about ten or fifteen miles from Mokau working in the bush. He did not remember when he had seen Fincham previous to this, but he had not told him he would be in Mokau on August 6. He did not know whether • he was known to Fincham as Charles : Rhodes. Invoices (produced) for goods ' which he had bought were all made out to him in the name of Joe Rhodes. He remembered accused calling on him on a Saturday during last month, after Constable Blaikie had seen witness. He did not I remember what conversation took place. ' Fincham said he was in trouble about a ■ case of whisky for which he was being • blamed. He told him that Constable Blaikie ! had been up enquiring about a case of i whisky which had been sent in witness’ ; name. Witness said he knew nothing about the case of whisky. Fincham said they i were blaming him for it, and asked if he (Rhodes) could help him. Witness replied that he could not help him. Fincham said he did not have the whisky. PILFERING WHISKY. Constable Blaikie said he was present on August 6 on the arrival of the mail coach at Mokau, and he saw the driver (Williscroft) hand accused several parcels and one case of whisky. Williscroft asked if Rhodes was about, and Fincham replied that he expected Rhodes in that night. On August 8 he was present when the coach arrived from Awakino, and took delivery of a case of whisky. He - opened this in the presence of accused, and the case was found to contain ten whisky bottles full of water. The case showed signs of having been tampered with, and some of the iren bands had been removed. He was certain the case was not in that condition when he saw it on August 6. In consequence of complaints of breaking and entering of C. H. Johnson’s store at Awakino, and the alleged theft of one case of whisky addressed to J. Rhodes, and another case addressed Jo R. Waters, he took possession of two orders which were filed by C. S. O’Neill, licensee at Urenui. The orders were among those produced in Court. The first exhibit was signed by J. Rhodes, and on examination of the handwriting he decided that the accused was the writer of the order. He made comparisons of the writing with bills and dockets he had received from accused, and he thought it was identical. Rhodes, who was working in the bush, was interviewed, and a signed statement was obtained from

The Senior-Sergeant was proceeding with the examination when Mr. Quilliam objected to the statement being put in as being irrelevant, and he pointed out that it had not been made in the presence of accused. Counsel contended that it was inadmissible to put in the statement for the purpose of getting the signature before the Court. He had no objection to the signature being cut off and sworn to by the constable as having been made by Rhodes, but contended that the actual statement should not be allowed. His Worship said there was something in counsel’s contention regarding allowing the statement to be put in, and SeniorSergeant McCrorie agreed to withdraw the statement. “LIQUOR TO MAKE HIM SLEEP” Proceeding, Constable Blaikie said he interviewed accused and iniormed him of the suspected forgery of the order signed “J. Rhodes”. In reply to witness Fincham said he did not write the order. Asked to give his denial in writing accused said he certainly would rtfet do this. Answering other questions as to how much liquor he had had, Fincham said he received one case on August 6 and three bottles previ-

ously. Witness asked him to produce the liquor, and defendant showed him six bottles of whisky. Accused denied having sold any whisky; he said he suffered from insomnia, and kept the liquor for his own use to make him steep. In consequence of information received later he elicited from Fincham that he had received one case of liquor on June 30, six bottles on July 15, and a case of whisky on August 6. When asked why he had previously denied receiving the liquor Fincham stated that he thought witness was referring to the Urenui Hotel. When interviewed on September 12, Fincham had produced six bottles of whisky, and on the 13th he voluntarily produced another bottle and one three-quarters full. Interviewed on September 24 he produced 7A bottles of whisky, having thus consumed a quarter of a bottle in eleven days, but from June 30 till September 12 he had consumed twenty-two and a quarter bottles. Mokau was a proclaimed area, and the procedure in regard to obtaining liquor was that the purchaser had to notify the vendor in writing that the liquor was intended for a proclaimed area, and was for private consumption. There was no other person by the name of Joe Rhodes in the Mokau district.

This concluded the case for the prosecution, with the exception of one witness— Williscroft, the driver of the coach.

His Worship said he did not see any reason for delaying proceedings in order to call the coach driver, as it was perfectly, plain that accused must go to trial. Mr. Quilliam said he intended to submit that a prima facie ~ case had not been established, and if the evidence of the driver was regarded as important for the prosecution an adjournment should be made. So far, however, the prosecution had failed even to establish proof of Fincham’s handwriting. The case was adjourned till to-day to enable the evidence of the coach-driver to be called. ANOTHER CHARGE. Following the above case, Fincham, was then charged with keeping liquor for sale in Mokau—a proclaimed area. Evidence for the prosecution was on similar lines to that given in the previous case as relating to the amount of liquor which accused had received within a certain period. It was admitted by counsel that Fincham had had thirty bottles of whisky between June 30 and September 12, a period of 74 days, and on the latter date he still had seven bottles in his possession.

Accused, giving evidence, denied that he had ever sold liquor or kept it for sale. He admitted receiving the quantities of liquor as previously mentioned, but said the whisky was kept for his own use. In addition he had entertained his friends, and had also lent three bottles, of which he had so far received one back. During part of the period he had consumed a good deal of whisky himself, as he was unable to sleep at nights. It was also usual for him to entertain his customers when they paid their accounts. Mr. Quilliam considered the law in these cases was extraordinary, and he remarked that though the principle of British law was to regard a man as innocent until he was proved guilty, the rule was reversed in regard to the possession of liquor in a proclaimed area: The onus was on the accused to show what he had done with the liquor. In this instance accused had given his assurance on oath that he had not sold liquor. His Worship intimated that he would give his decision to-day, when both the charges will be disposed of.