RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3920, 22 July 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) > ' DEUNKEIi/-NEBS. George Turner was charged with the, above offence. ; lie pleaded guilty, but gajd that if he was let off this time he would not get drunk again. .-';. > ;..-■■<•,' ;.< ; \:[ */■"■'-. His Worship recommended that he be brought lip as a vagrant, When he would be able to deal with the c^se. D£I?'aAUp.INa,,THB Be VENUE* \ TipiEC (CUSTOIIS) y. HOG<J. ! Alexander" Hdgjj -'was ohargesl wifclr neglecting to affix and cancel the Beer Duty stamp on one cask of beer. : jyir ; jytiljer appeared for defrmdapt^and pleaded not g^iil't^jr-? M-r Brassey appeared tor the Collector of Customs. " ; Charles Curtis," "sworn, deposed—liewas licensee of the fPrfgiftd' ff6.tel;]in jGrahamstown;. %j_The 'n^Ber; napped ia that nolte (produced) was delivered* to him on the, 20th June-by IV^r Hogg. He recollegted the Collector of Customs taking pertain ' Stamps-- frQmtSth,osef-5 «iifc»iUllUbfeljß^fimg:j produpe^ wa3 r«fto # the»«• -itu^as pltcpdf ■ partly qrer the bung-hoje -of- the" o*a^fei abut did not quite cover it, ««&->£ . By Mr Miller —The stamps are generally over the tap hole. He usually drove

the tap through the stamp. The liquor was not always-drawn through the hole over which the stamp was fixed. E. F. Tizord, Collector of Customs and Beer Doty at the Thames, sworn, deposed —Me recollected on Saturday last taking some stamps off some casks at Mr Gurtis's.; The stamp produced was dated 20th June. It wus not cancelled nor affixed on the cask in compliance with the Beer Duty Act He saw defendant about the emission, and he said it had been done in his absence by his carter, who had not the power to cancel the stamp in the name of the firm. The stamp was for 36 gallons, and the value was 9s. Mr srassey put ii a Gazette proving that the Thames was'a distriet*under the Beer Duty Act. I This was the case for the prosecution. 1 Mr Miller addressed the Court in defence. He held that the stamp had been cancelled, the date having been twritten on it. There was no intention to defraud the revenue, and Mr Curtis had proved the stamps were usually cancelled in the way the one in question had been. ' His Worship, after summing up, held that the stamp had not been affixed or cancelled, and therefore he could but iaflicfc the penalty, provided by the Act, namely, £20, witliMt costs. SAME V. L. EHEENFBIED. Louis Ebrenfried was charged with affixing, or allowing to be affixed, a false stamp on a cask on the 14th inst. Mr Tyler, who appeared for defendant, objected to the information ; first, on the ground that it contained two charges, and secondly that the section under which the charge was laid was defective, and therefore no offence could be committed.under it. " •'■-- -' Mr Brassey asked that the information be amended to read, " that defendant knowingly permitted the stamp to be affixed." ■ His Worship said Mr Tyler was right, but thought the meaning of the section was plain, though it was grammatically incorrect. Mr Brassey then asked that the present information be withdrawn, and another substituted. This, after some discussion, was allowed, and the new information read. ":' -.■:'■' .--•••,■•■ The new information charged the defendant with knowingly permitting a false and fraudulent stamp to'be affixed to a cask of beer, which was sold to a person named E.. Twohill. Mr Tyler objected to the framing of the information, but after some discussion the case was proceeded with. E. F. Tizard, sworn, deposed—On the 16th inst., he proceeded to Mr Twohill's' Hotel' in Shprtland, and seized a cask of beer there. He removed the stamp from the cask. In consequence of the appearance, he thought the stamp wa9 not a new 1 one, but could not swear: that it was an old one. Mr Twohill and a man named Jennings were present when he removed the stamp, which in this case was properly fixed on the cask over the tap hole. ■■' By; Mr Tyler.—-Wet; weather- would soon defaced stamp, r^The cask* waslin the front of the house, and to the best of his belief was on its .end. . Qn that day he visited several other hotels in company with the man-Jennings; He k'riew\a man named Butler.. ; He had come to witne.ss twice. By the Court—The cask from which he removed .the stamp had not been tapped. ..„.,., . . , Edmund Twohill, sworn, deposed—He recollected Mr Tizard going to him on Saturday last, and taking the stamp off a cask of beer. Since then he had riot received any beer from defendant. The cask in "question was delivered to him on the 14th inst. When the stamp was taken off, the cask was on 1, its-rend?-:the; stamp downwards) r? ■■ •.. -.. f T O ' ' By' Mr Tyler,—The .stamp was very wet from leakage from the bung-hole. By the Court—He did not notice the stamp until Saturday. , ; Joe Jennings, sworn, deposed—He was lately in the -employ, of Mr Ehrenfried. He knew th>'difference between oldrand new Beer 3Diity ; stamp?. \He had received iinstriictionß.-as to how 1 to jm£/ thp'^imps .on,", and he/ was not. supposed to"- put .them oni- The stamps ,on the which went; to^Auckland were generally ■ put beside the; bung-hole,;.and np.t QyeiKitj. Me TecoUeotedigoing, to •Mr.ljyoh'Ul's with Mr Tizard. He had been there himself before. He; went-there to look at a stamp on a hogshead. The stamp pro;----i d uced was Win' old; one that is,-it had been out before.' ;hi c had seen stamps used more than- ->' on'ee! (So) Me brewery.: ;5n Sending out beer tlie:endlqf! the cask with the sfatttp -on<- it was placed downwards inHhe dray. He was sareithp stamp proidtfcied was not a nevr: 6Ke,; be;cause it ; was stuck." over the cork. He had some stamps iv 'hiis; possession which he took off empty casks in defendant's yard. These stamps had been out an.cc. j By Mr Tyler—He left defendant's employ on Saturday morning, and aboujt half an hour after he went to Mr Tizard and informed on defendant. He informed because he was discharged by defendant, and becauSe'he wuld not get-some wages due t6"fiTniT- On l#f^B|fairday hh went with Mr Brassey;• to- severajl hotels. He partedi^m •W-m- &ba\i% six o'clock in the 'eve)srirg. Mr Butlep was not i; w,ith, ihe^. Mr MoCorjmiok gave relafijrßjtp MrT'Wohiirpj'JiHe naidVoti to the be*£at his belief, tieen^^ discharged for absenting i himself from work. Wb^en he : lef|;p^nip' dant, he said "he would make ifc'hbifoV him." j By the C<Jurt**The only season for his saying that the stamp was,an<old one W's that it was oter the bung-hole,; and jjQnfe but old stamps, sofaras he knew, weii^e; put oe in that way.. Hie was not at th|e jbrewery on the 14tb inst. ' ! , [ ! James' McCofmick, sworn, deposed-p-He was in the employ of defendant, and recollected, a cask going out last week v to, the order of Mr Twohill, He- Helj»^d' to put the cask in tb.^ part.: He made ja remark to, liutler when pitting" the oasjt into cart, referring to the stamp. H|e made the., remark in consequence of thio stamp beingorer the taphole, and when thp,stamp was put ther.9. it was a general saying apiong the brewery' men- that t was a dummy. 'By an old stamp the meant one that had been taken off a caskbefore., Tbjß.^tarnp ref^rre|_tQ was an I old one. ißj^ an qlq=fctemp^l meiht[ oijei that h^d been .used before. When tie 1 oask was sent out the ataojp wa* Dot totn as it is now. j 1 By Mr Tyler-"-:^^^^!*^© defendant ;last Tuesday X ta shQW.,lviii» a.,letter : j ;.£!e afterwards went to Mr Braasey at his own request. He k-new w!t(en ue went to '.t tha| defendant was^charged wi b,; 'xtsinjj^ sta'mp'iwicl^. „He^c'6ula^nb't the stamp in 'question had been 'on morej than one cask. . m *f T> I Ii Frederick Buller, one of defeDdanrs men, deposed—He took a cask of bee? to

Mr Twobill's last week. James McCormifk helped him to put the cask on the cart. McCormick remarked that it might be a dummy, referring to the stamp on the,, cask. The stamp was wet. He could not say who put the stamp on the cask. He was positive it did not look a new stamp when he put the cask into the cart. The stamp was not defaced by the barrel rolling in the mud. He could not say who had put that particular stamp on. By the Court—He noticed the stamp because it was dirty looking, and had the appealaaco of having .been used before.*. .The stamps are generally put on the barrels , the-day they are sent out. It was raining on the day when the cask in question was sent out. He- toofc^oufr- jP more than one cask^on the day jn question, but did uot notice the'stanips particularly.^^ By Mr lyier—He took the cask firom the shed, and the rain could not get atlT. The cask was on its side when he took |> from the shed. Defendant-had told him, several times that he would hare to dif« miss him. Mr Tyler then addressed.the Courtrin defence, and contended at some length that the case for the Crown had not been proved. - v" His Worship then summed up, saying^* no evidence had been, adduced to prove that a false and fraudulent stamp,'according to the Act, had been used, and there* fore dismissed the case. - r ... Court adjourned, tilfthree o'clock.'" „ THE OTHER CASES. 0n the Court resuming, Louis Ehren* fried was charged with having used i. certain Beer Duty stamp Oafcclskjof beer sold to one Edmund Twohill; rsuch stanip having been used before for a simitar purpose. Mr Tyler,. objected to. the information on the ground that it was faulty. 1 '■.'■ After some discussion, Mr Brassey asked permission * to* withdr"aj^]^einfo^» mations (five in number) laid* against defendant, to allow ium to lay fresh informations. :-L 1 Mr Tyler applied for costs in all the cases;,;.;;. : ■ • >. ■■ •.';■■■ ■• >• _ ...... ■„-■ v,, t His Worship granted both ; applications, allowing three guineas as professional costs., - - „. . . , . Tv: ■ v: ■ ' [Left Sitting.] 1 i ' ; 1