RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 102, 22 January 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.) Monday, January 17, 1870. sly grog seliing.

James Hopkins was informed against by Constable Henderson for having sold fermented liquor by retail without being licensed so to do. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the constable stated the facts. It appeared that he Constable Henderson being at Evans' Flat wanted to send a saddle to Lawrence, and seeing Mr. Coverlid's cart outside Hopkins', asked the man in charge of the cart if he would take the saddle home for him, to which the man assented. Thereupon the constable asked the man to have a drink, and the invitation being accepted, both parties went into Hopkins' store, and had each a glass of ale, for which the constable paid. The constable stated further that he had only recently been stationed in Lawrence, and had no idea till afterwards that Hopkin's store was not a licensed hotel. He had, earlier in the day, seen a number of men drinking at Hopkins' counter, and from the open manner in which it was done, he never suspected but that it was a licensed house.

Mi 4 . Inspector Percy said that he thought this was a case calling for vigorous punishment. Mr. Hopkins had no excuse. He held a bottle license, and had frequently been warned not to sell retail. He submitted that the Bench should consider whether in addition to a fine the bottle license ought not to be cancelled. '

His Worship said that for a considerable time sly grog selling had been going on hereabouts, and that recently the police (who naturally objected to the task) had been instructed to put the law in force, and he was glad to see that they were obeying their orders. In so doing hegwould support them, and would be failing in his* duty if he did not do so. Hjj| \Vcnpahip dwelt tjpon th^ injustice

inflicted upon licensed publicans by sly grog sellers, pointing out the constant surveillance to which they are subjected, and the gross injustice of allowing unlicensed persons to rob them of their profits. In this case no excuse existed. Mr. Hopkins held a bottle license only, and yet presumed to sell as though he held a publican's license, and that close alongside of a duly licensed house. Fined £10 and costs — failing payment, distress, and failing distress, imprisonment for one month.

Lawrence Carter Holmes was charged by Constable Henderson with the same offence. In this case Mr. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) appeared for the defendant, and pleaded guilty. In doing • so, Mr. Keen said that unlike the case just disposed of, there was a good deal to be said in extenuation or rather in mitigation of penalty. Mr. Holmes, a wellknown and highly respected settler, resided some four or five miles from any public house, having nearly if not quite that distance on either side of him. He was located in an out-of-the-way place on a country road, and doubtless the inducement to occasionally sell a glass of ale to a passer-by was considerable. He contended that although the offence, in its legal aspect, was doubtless a3 great as if a publican lived next door, that yet morally the offence was vastly different, and that a very small fine indeed would satisfy the ends of justice. Mr. Keen was proceeding to point out the ruinous effect which a large fine would have upon defendant's family, when he was stoped by his Worship, who stated that such arguments had no weight whatever with him — this was a case more flagrant than the last. Mr. Holmes had some time since applied for and obtained a residence area on the Beaumont Road, under pretence of farming, but actually in order to open a shanty. No excuse could avail. If a large fine would crush the defendant, he (the defendant) should have thought of that before— it was the defendant's business, not that of the Bench. It could not be urged that between Evans' Plat and Beaumont, a distance of only eight miles, travellers were so in need of refreshment as to afford any shadow of excuse for sly grog selling. Doubtless the sly liquor traffic, like smuggling, was very profitable, and consequently people would risk an occasional fine. Perhaps, if not put down, in a few years large fortunes would be amazed to the prejudice of the licensed victualler. In this case he should inflict a penalty of £20 and costs, failing lament, distress, and failing distress, imprisonment for 2 months.