OVER THE BORDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 September 1922, Page 7

OVER THE BORDER.

LIQUOR INTO A PROCLAIMED AREA A NUMBER OF CHARGES. The fact that Joseph Arthur. O’Donnell, living at Tongaporutu, a proclainred no-license area, had received 22 gallons of ale and 8 bottles of whiskey in about two months, aroused the suspicions of Constable Blaikie, stationed at Mokau, and when he had occasion to interview him on July 14 on another matter he mentioned that it was a considerable amount of liquor for one man to receive. Reeeliving answers that he considered unsatisfactory he reported the matter and the upshot was that O’Donnell was brought before Mr. A. M» Mowlem, S.M., at the Magistrate’s •Court at New Plymouth yesterday charged with having kept liquor for safe in a proclaimed no-license area, and with having obtained- it without giving proper. notice in writing of his name and address to the licensee of the Urenuj Hotel, Cyril J. S. O’Neill, who supplied the liquor. iSenior=Sergeant McCrorie appeared for the police and Mr. R. H. Quilhani for O’Ppnnell.

Constable Blaikie related his interview with accused, when O’Donnell had mentioned that he had received six bottles of whiskey on July H. Witness inquired about another TiaTT-dozen TidfETes which had come up on the 13th, but witness said he had not ordered them. He and his brother had discussed the question of notifying the . constable about thi§- consignment, agd in the meantime it was hidden in a woodheap neat the Tongaporutu bridge. The first six bottles had been consumed, O’Donnell said, but he showed the constable where the other-six bottles were, the constable confiscating them as evidence. The labels...‘wejs those of the Lrenui Hotel and the writing on them was similar to that on other labels from the hotel. O’Donnell made a statement which 4he witness read. He was a single man and at the time was working in the Tongaporutu metal pits. • Constable La People, Waitara, was the next witness. He . said that, in company with Constable Blaikie, he had examined the books of the Urenui Hotel with respect to the liquor supplied to accused. There was an entry on May 8 for five gallons of beer, but the order showed only two gallons; on May 12 there was an entry for five gallons and an O.K. order; May -26,”entry for onethird of a gallon of whiskey and a telegram order for it; May 27, entry for five gallons of beer and an O.K. order; June 29, entry Tor another five gallons, but he could not find any order, nor could the licensee, which was also the case in respect to a further two gallons on July 6, -while oh July 13 there W’a'S an entry for one gallon of whiskey, an order dated Julv 10 being filed, which •witness Took to Tie ni fespeSt 'Gt tlrtS"*' entry. If O’Donnell got. some whiskey on July JI then there would be another missing order. Evidence was also given by Cyril O’Neill as to supplying the liquor. He detailed his methods of filing his orders, and said that he must have received them, otherwise they would not be in his books. After execution the orders were placed on another file and must have been thrown out with some other papers.

Before calling the evidence for the defence, drew attention to the fact Hi a £ Tri the Lackbldcks' areas where certain forms have to be gone through in order to obtain liquor, a man got in a quantity when he was ordering, especially in the tase 'of beer. Five gallons of beer or 40 pints would soon disappear among the 14 or 15 men with whom accused was living, and five gallons would not go far, particularly when they came in dry after a hard day’s -work. Mr. Mowlem: One can appreciate the avidity with which they would attack it, Mr. Quilliam. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Quilliam pointed out that the onus lay on the defendant to show that he was hot selling the liquor. The law said he was receiving a considerable amount of liquor and said: “Prove you do not sell it ”

The accused theh entered the box. He said he worked, in the Tongaporutu metal pits with about 14 or 15 other men, all of them, except two, livinga woolshed close by. It was customary for the men to take turns in “shouting” for the liquor. He had sent written orderA for all the liquor he had got, one time sending a telegram because he had been told that that was all right. Regarding one consignment of beer he had ordered this as a result of a wager on a football match, the loser, Jas. Henry Rowe, having given him _the_money to get it. He denied having sold liquor and had not seen anyone else in the camp sell it. The whiskey he ordered on July 10 was reeeiied about July 13 and he had found that his brother had ordered the six bottles confiscated by the constable.

Jas. Henry Rowe corroborated this witness’ evidence regarding the custom of each man shouting in turn at the camp and had never seen accused nor anyone else sell liquor there. The Magistrate took time to consider his : decision. After the luncheon adjournment he announced that, after considering a decision by His Honor Sir Bassett Edwards, he had come to the conclusion that accussed had received more liquor than ho-could reasonably be expected to consume himself, or in the ordinary .’.ay of hospitality, arid he must be convicted for keeping liquor for sale. On the seOdnd charge, which respect to the telegram Order, he must be convicted and - he would also be convicted on thß"trther charges, except that relating to the liquor sent on July 13, which would be dismissed. After hearing the remaining cases His Worship inf*' fines of £lO for keep-

ing the liq - •, £3 for the second charge ’nd. £2 , '*for the other two charges. 0 ? Do»nell would-also 'be ordered to pay £2 as his share of the witnesses’ expenses, while the liquor would be confiscated.

THE LICENSEE CHARGED. CONVICTIONS RECORDED. Arising out of the.investigation of the police in O’Donnell’s case, the licensee of the Urenui Hotel. Cyril J. S. O’Neill, was next charged. . The offences alleged against J|im arose out of his transactions with O’Donnell, and he was charged with having sent the liquor without receiving written orders, . each charge having a following one of failing to file the orders. He was also further charged with having solicited an order in a proclaimed area and with having sent one bottle of whiskey to James Dougherty, of Tongaporutu. These last two charges arose out of the one set of circumstances. Constable La Pouple repeated his evidence concerning his inability to find rirders for the liquor sent to O’Donnell

and to O’NeiH’s inabjyty to produce them when he was asked for them a week after his search.

Regarding the bottle of whiskey sent to Dougherty, Constable Blaikie said he took possession of a bottle of whiskey addressed to him. Suspecting that it might have been forwarded without an order, he interviewed Dougherty and later had a conversation with the defendant. had stated that Dougherty, who was an old friend of his, had forwarded him an order and the money for two bottles of whiskey, but the letter had gone astray. Tn order ’to compensate him a little for his loss he had forwarded the bottle. Witness jnquiied if O’Neill was in the habit of doing thingk“frr Jiris -manner, and he had replied that he thought he was justified in forwarding the liquor provided Ire wrote an order for it himself, filed the order,'’and" notified'’ the cterk of then court. In reply to a witness, O’Neill had added that he had previously forwarded five gallons of beer to the Tongaporutu football team and another small parcel of liquor in this manner. Witness’ advised him not to continue the practice, as he considered It ’illegal.

The defendant then entered the box and repeated his explanation- concerning the missing orders from O’Donnell. Regarding the bottle of whiskey sent to Dougnefty he said that Dougherty had sent the order and later the money, but the money had gone astray. As -Dougherty was an old friend he had. decided that he ’Would share the loss with him and sent hirp the bottle of whiskey, but he would riot know it was coming because a letter explaining the matter was on the same coach; Witness made out the order himself and put it on the file. The constable’s evidence regarding the conversation was not exactly correct concerning what he had said about the order and money. With reerence to the matter of sending liquor on a telegram order witness said he had written to thri clerk of the court at Te Kuiti regarding the .legality of such orders, and had received a letter in reply stating that they were quite legal, and he ’ hart “til ere fore advised his customers to that effect.

The charges of sending the liquor were dismissed, 3Jr. Mowlem accepting the evidence of the defendant’s books regarding the despatch of the liquor, which showed that defendant had otherwise complied yvith the law: For sending the liquor on the telegram order he would be fined £3, with court costs 7s, while on the two charges of failing to file the orders- he was.Jlued £lO on. jeach. The charge of soliciting, and the following one of having sent the bottle of whiskey to Dougherty, were dismissed. A 'SERIOUS CHARGE. TRIAL BY JURY CHOSEN. In addition to being charged on the same lines as O’Donnell with haying kept liquor for sale in a proclaimed area, and with having sent orders without giving his full name and address, George Ferguson, mail driver on the Mt. Messenger route, was called on to answer the more serious charge of having forged a document purporting to be an order for one case of whiskey ordered by Arthur John Hosking, Ahititi. The accused elected to.be tried by a jury on this charge, and, after hearing the evir denee. his Worship adjourned the hearing of the other charges until the Supreme Court had dealt with the indictable offence. The charge of forgery arose out of Constable La Pouple’s examination of the "orders Tor liquor “at Hie Urenui Hotel, when he saw the orders produced, two purporting to come from Hosking and one from Ferguson. He considered

that one ftf those>uppo6ed to have come from Hosking had been written by the game person who wrote Ferguson’s order. Arthur J. Hosking said that one of the orders produced purporting to come from him was not signed by him and he had never given Ferguson or anyone else authority to get liquor for him. The licensee of the hotel, Cyril J- S. O’Neill, gave formal evidence as to having despatched the liquor in accordance with the order in dispute, and then Constable Blaikie related a conversation he had had with Ferguson anent the matter. Fergrifcbri adihitted writing the order and signing it, saying he had done so on behalf of Hosking, himself, and others. “I am not afraid; Fm set,” he said, but he declined to make a stateTnent in writing. Evidence was given by Michael O’JltilI&Tan "and Adsm-Gr hrfrorers; Tongaporutu, to the effect that Ferguson had brought a ease of whiskey up ■on his coach and had given them a couple of drinks out of one of the bottles. O’Halloran said Ferguson told him to open the case. Neither had any interest in the whiskey. Accused pleaded.“not gnjlty,” reserved his defence and was committed for trial, bail being allowed, himself in £lOO, and two sureties of £75, or one of £l5O.