“YOU SURPRISE ME!”

Taranaki Daily News, 20 October 1922, Page 7

“YOU SURPRISE ME!”

LIQUOR AT MOKAU. CASE ON A LORRY. The fact that a considerable quantity of liquor was coming into the Mokau district, a proclaimed no-license area, led Constable Blaikie to suspect that channels other than those strictly legal were being used in order to cater for the taste of the thirsty ones. Accordingly he exercised more than usual vigilance, and, in the course of his duties, he searched one of Mr. C. H. Johnston’s motor lorries on its arrival at Mokau at about 6.45 p.m. on the 18th ult., and had a word or two with the driver, Thomas Moore Campbell, on the subject of carrying whisky. The constable had a look round the lorry with the aid of his torch, and mentioned that things seemed all right. Unfortunately for Campbell, however, he solicited the use of the constable’s torch in order to adjust a minor defect on his lorry, and it ' was -while he was kindly obliging that the constable noticed a sack which he had not seen ibefore. He thereupon resumed his search of the lorry, and underneath a sack of coal found twelve bottles of P. and O. whisky laid out in another sack along the floor of the lorry. They were not addressed, and boro no label or description as required by the Act. “What about this?” asked Constable Blaikie. “You surprise me I” replied Campbell. “I didn’t know it was there.” The sequel was played at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Campbell was charged on two counts of keeping liquor for sale in a proclaimed area and taking liquor into a proclaimed area without complying -with the law in the matter of addresses, permits, etc. Senior-Sergeant H. McCrorie conducted the prosecution, while Mr. W. H. Freeman appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to botli charges.

THE CONSTABLE’S STORY. Constable Blaikie outlined the facts as stated above, and produced a statement setting forth the details of the search signed by Campbell, in whose presence the bottles were discovered, and set out on the road. Continuing, the constable said that on the following morning he went to Mr. Johnston’s Tongoporutu stables, and there found, lying in front of the stable, an empty whisky case of the same brand as the bottles discovered in the lorry. The condition of lhe case showed clearly that it had not been out in the weather for any length of time, also that it had not. contained any other goods which had soiled it in any way. Campbell, on a journey to Tekau the previous day, would have to pass the stables. Answering Mr. Freeman, th 6 constable stated that he had read the statement twice to Campbell ibefore he signed it, and further that he had not heard of any parties in that district receiving a case of whisky and there “settling it on the spot.” William Walshe and Alfred 'William Hutchen were called in rebuttal of a suggestion that Constable Blhikie averred. had been made at the time of the search of the lorry, that either of them may have put the liquor in the lorry. They -were both drivers on the Mokau route, and had come in contact with Campbell that day. Both detailed their movements very minutely. This closed the case for the police. Mr. Freeman submitted that Campbell could not be convicted of keeping liquor for sale. All the evidence that had been brought was with reference to only twelve bottles of whisky. Air. Mowlem said that the onus of proof was on the defendant, but Mr. Freeman replied that the Act stated that when it was proved that liquor was kept or exposed for sale, and not before that proof had been given, could a defendant be called on to rebut the evidence.

Respecting the second charge, counsel said that the evidence showed that Campbell picked up the load about the boundary of the proclaimed area, and that there' was no liquor in the lorry immediately before. He submitted that the inference was that he picked up the liquor or that it was placed 'on his lorry within the proclaimed area. It was not an offence to carry liquor from one part of a proeliamed area to another. WAS IT “PLANTED?” The accused then entered the box, and related his journeyings until he decided to pick up the load from the side of the road. He did so, and then went to the boarding house at Tongaj.orutu, where he had intended staying the night. That was about three o’clock in the afternoon. He left his lorry standing outside the boardinghouse for about a couple of hours, and then changed his mind, picked up more cargo, and decided to take it through to Awakino, returning next morning. He saw no sign of whisky on the lorry, and he detailed how he distributed the second lot of goods he took aboard. The only way he could account for the whisky getting aboard was that somebody wanted to get it through and had “planted’ it there. He knew absolutely nothing about it, and the first he had seen of it was when the constable brought it to light. Mr. Mowlem said Campbell could not l.e convicted of keeping liquor for sale, and that eharee would therefore be dismissed. On the other charge he must he convicted. He had in his possession in a proclaimed area twelve bottles of whisky. The accused held that he was an innocent party, which may or may not be true, but one of the outstanding features against the defendant was thal the bottles were found underneath the bags of small forge coal. Had he been carrying ordinary coal the bottles would have been broken long before they reached their intended destination. Apart from that the defendant did not deny that he had the liquor in his possession. Mr. Freeman: Will your Worship hear me on “mens rea?” Mr. Mowlem: It is not necessary to prove a guilty, mind. Tt is not necessary to prove “mens rea" in sn h cases. Tn view of the heavy witness expellees, Campbell would bo (ir <1 only £5 and ordered to pay the expenses incurred, amounting to £l2 2s. An order confiscating the liquor wa - al?u made.