IN THE “DRY” AREA.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 November 1922, Page 8

IN THE “DRY” AREA.

WHEN THE WHISKY ARRIVES. CASE IN SUPREME COURT. FORGERY CHARGE FAILS. The habits of certain residents of the “dry” area beyond Waitara were revealed in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when George Ferguson, a settler of those parts, appeared in the prisoner’s box. The allegations against Ferguson were that on June IS. somewhere about Tongaporutu, he made a false document, to wit, an order for a case of whisky, purporting to be signed by one A. Hoskins, knowing that the document was false, and that it was made with the intention of having it acted upon as genuine. He was also further charged that, knowing the order referred to was forged, he caused the licensee of the Urenui Hotel, Cyril J. S. O’Neill, to act on it as if it were genuine.

His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman presided, Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown solicitor) prosecuted, and Mr. R. H. Quilliam represented the accused. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. R. Seamark. P. Biesick, J. Buttermoor, T. A. Ambrose. E. May, A. H. Grant, F. Callaghan, L. D. Callaghan, L. C. Dawson, F. G. Woods, J. A. Barker, H. R. Rowland. Mr. Rowland was elected foremap. Constable Lapouple, Waitara. was the first witness, and lie suated that when he bad occasion to inspect the orders for liquor at the Urenui Hotel he came across two orders supposed to have been signed by A. Hoskins. He had doubts concerning the genuineness of one of them, and on looking further through the file he found an order signed by G. Ferguson. The writing on this order and the doubtful one was similar, and he had come to the conclusion that the same man wrote both. In both these orders the word “private” was spelt “privet,” while the “Mae” of “Saqdy Mac” was spelt “Me.” GETTING LIQUOR TN. The licensee of the hotel, Cyril James Stafford O’Neill, identified the orders produced, and said he had fulfilled them. He knew Hoskins, and presumed that the liquor ordered in his name was for him. Replying to Mr. Quilliam, witness said that the money for the whisky came with the order. He was not. surprised to see in the order “me and company,” as he often received orders intended for parties of men. Arthur John Hoskins, sharemilker, Ahititi, said that he was the only one of his name in the district as far as he knew. One of the orders produced in court bearing his name was signed by him. but the other was not. Replying to Mr. Quilliam. witness said that while he was not a teetotaller he w r as not far from it. ITis cross-ex-amination was Continued as to the number of times he had got liquor In, and witness at first asserted that he had obtained only one consignment, hut eventually admitted that he had received three or four lots. He denied that he had ever joined in with anv of the parties formed for getting liquor into the King Country, or that he had ever had anything to do with such gangs. He knew nothing of what men in gangs did wifh regard to liquor, and knew nothing of the drinking conditions in the district. He denied that he had told Ferguson that, he could get a couple of bottles of whisky in his name. Constable Blaikie. stationed at Mokau. related a conversation ho had had with accused on the mail coach on June 24, when Ferguson had reported that five bottles of whisky had been taken from a case addressed to A. Hoskins, care of accused, at Tongaporutu. Later on the constable had the doubtful order and the one signed by berguson in his own name. He asked accused if he had previously seen the doubtful order, and he had replied “Yes.” Questioned as to whether he had signed the order, accused had replied that he had. and that 'he was not afraid as he was “set.” When he had spoken to Ferguson about the matter he had warned him to bo careful what he said, as he (Witness) was investigating a probable charge of forgery. A LOT OF “SLY GROG.”

Cross-examined, Constable Blaikio admitted that there was quite a lot of sly grog-selling going on in the King Country, and he had to move about a great deal in an endeavor to keep it down. When he approached people about liquor it was generally the case that they denied all knowledge of liquor in the district. He had his suspicions about a number who he thought were selling liquor.

Michael O’Halloran, laborer, Tongaporutu, said he was present at Tongaporutu when Ferguson brought the casqj of whisky referred to. and on his invitation had opened it and a bottle, and had had a “spot.” In fact, he had three or four, and had then gone home. The case was addressed to A. Hoskins, care of E. G. Ferguson, Tongaporutu. He had had no proprietary interest -n the case.

Replying to Mr. Quilliam, O’Halloran gave the names of the men who rapidly foregathered at the stable when the news spread that a ease of whisky had arrived. He had gone down to meet the coach in order to obtain the Daily Nows, and the “spot” had come as a welco/ie ■Surprise. It was quite the usual thing in that district for various fellows to take it “in turn to “shout.” and it was not uncommon for a man to visit his cache and find that his whisky had been “borrowed.” Adam Gemmell Sinclair and Joseph Arthur O’Donnell also gave evidence concerning the habits of the district. Sinclair said he had seen only one bottle of whisky out of the case that was now reported to have been there, and he had had no financial interest in it, while O’Donnell, who was vice-captain of the football team, said he did not know of any whisky being ordered on their behalf. In summing up, His Honor said that the suggestion of the Crown was that the order was used with the sinister object of getting liquor into the King Country in some such way a R might set at nought the laws of the Dominion regarding that area. The case was not on the same footing as a practical joke, or a crime with the object of extracting money, but the jury had to consider whether the indictment was proved that the accused had made and used the document with the intention that it 'should be acted upon.