SLY-GROG SELLING.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 129, 28 July 1870, Page 5

SLY-GROG SELLING.

Police v. James Harris. — Charged on information of police with having, on the 18th day of July, sold four glasses of liquor, contrary to the Ordinance. Pleaded Not Guilty. ' *

Mr. Gooday appeared for defendant. David Francis, bein</- sworn, deposed — I recollect last Monday. I was in the store of defendant. I was paying him a bill. There was another party in the store at the oame time. I don't know his name. Mr. Harris was present. I had a conversation with the stranger, and he asked my name ; and before I came away, I asked him if he would take anything. He replied that he had no objection, but he would toss me for it, which was done, and he lost. I then had something to drink (whiskey), and I believe the other party had something also. Mr. Harris served the drinks. I drank mine out of a wine glass. I did not see the stranger pay anything. He bade me good luck, and I returned the compliment. I know Robert Usher. He was coming into the store whilst I was leaving. He did not join us in liquoring. Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I was standing in front of the counter. I saw no money being paid for the drinks. I don't know the strength of the drink supplied ; it was whiskey, I Baw no money pass. Robert Usher, being sworn, deposed — I know the defendant. I was in his store in the beginning of the week. I saw the last witness in the store. He was coming out when I went in. There was a stranger in the store. I had a conversation with him. He said that I was veiy like his father, but not so tall. He ended by asking me if I would have anything to drink. I had a nobbier of whiskey, and he had something. Mr. Harris served us. I could not tell where the whiskey came from ; all I know is that I got it and drank it The stranger paid for it ;ho placed a shilling on the counter. Harris himself had a drink. I got mine in a tumbler. I had not tho least difficulty in drinking it, even tho' there was mair o't. Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I was standing in the store Avhilst I drank the whiskey. I saw the stranger pay money. He placed a shilling on the counter. I did not see Harris take it Tip, but I suppose he did. Mr. Gooday addressed the Bench, and contended that there was no proof of money having been paid. Besides there was no proof that the spirit supplied was above 26° proof, which they must prove before a verdict can be obtained. The Bench, however, thought different, and came to the conclusion that money had been paid, and that there was a sale, and therefore fined the defendant £10 and costs of Court. Police v. Wootton. — Charged with having, on the 16th July, sold three glasses of liquor. Mr. Gooday appeared for defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty. Samuel Millady, being sworn, deposed — I know the defendant. I went to his j house and asked for refreshment, and wad told I could get supplied. I got dinner. The defendant came into the room. There was one other man at the table. I knew him in Invercargill — Nelson is his name. He shouted, and the drinks were served by Mrs. Wootton. There were four drinks served in my presence — three port wines, and one whisky. Nelson paid for them to Mrs. Wootton. Cross-examined by Mr. Gooday — I am a farm labourer. I had my dinner. I had a sumptuous dinner for Is. 6d., aud I paid Is. for two drinks. I did not see any lemonade. I had none. 1 had whisky. I think a mixture of port wine and lemonade is a very strange one. Possibly after a night's spree it would be very good. It was not a pocket handkerchief she got for tho drinks. It would bo strange to gel change out of a pockethandkerchief. It was money she got, and she gave him back change. James Ferguson Stevenson, sworn, deposed — I was in defendant's employ on Saturday last. I recollect seeing the last witness in Wootton's establishment with another party, whom I did not know. He was a German. We usually had breakfast and dinner in the kitchen, and tea in the parlour. I was called to have a drink by Mrs. Wootton. I was allowed one daily after my dinner — in fact it was part of my wages three glasses per d;'y. Mrs. Wootton served the drinks. I did not understand that my drink was paid for by any one. If I had not got my allowance, T would have asked for it. Cross-examined — When Mrs. Wootton asked mo to drink, I understood it was my due. I wanted the drink. I lefc the room after I had my drink. At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Percy stated that in consequence of a material witness not being present, he would ask for an adjournment. A summons was issued for him, but although all diligence was used, the party could not be found. Mr. Gooday objected to an adjournment, the police having had plenty of time to get up their casj. i Constable Henderson was called to prove that he had endeavoured to serve the summons, but did not succeed. He went to the residence of the party, but could not find him. His Worship, under the circumstances, ' granted an adjournment till Monday. Police v. Craig. — The defendant, who lives at Round Hill, beyond Waitahuna, was charged with having, on the L6th inst., sold to one Millady, one glass of whisky. The defendant admitted having given the whisky, but took no money for it. Millady threw down a shilling. I told him to take it up again, as from Ms appearance he had need of it. Millady, being sworn, deposed — On the day in question I called at the house of defendant, and found him working at a piggery. I asked him if he had still a " shot in the locker." He replied that he had. I went into the house. He gave me a glass of whisky. I put down a shilling, but as he could not find a sixpence, he stated that he would have one himself for it. His Worship remarked that he did not like the manner in which the charge was brought forward by the informant, but the law made provision for it, and he must, irrespective of any feeling in the matter, comply with its provisions. The judgment of the Court would therefore be that the defendant be find in the sum of £20, and costs of Court — a month to elapse ere execution be enforced. Monday, Juxy 25. (Before the same Magistrate.) SLY-GROG SELLING. ' Police v. Wootton.— Adjourned from

last Court day to enable tho police to produce a witness, which they were unable to do, and the case went before the Court as it stood on the previous day. Mr Gooday addressed the Bench. Mrs, Henry, being sworn, deposed to having been a boarder in the house for some time, and tho price charged for a dinner is 2a 6d. I remember one Nelson being there on the 16th July along with another man, both had dinner. I saw one of them pay Mr. Wootton ss. Nothing was said about drinks. I saw no drinks. The man I refer to is now in the corner (pointing to him.) Cross-examined by Mr. Percy. — I recollect the other man Nelson. 1 could not tell how long they remained after they finished dinner. I saw no drinks at all. I did not hear Nelson call for any drinks. This closed the case. The Magistrate summed up, and found from the whole evidence that liquor was sold and served to the parties, and as the ordinance must be taken as law, he must adhere to it until the Supremo Court abrogate it, as at present the mere serving is prima fade, evidence. He would, therefore, fine the defendant £20 and costs of Court. A second information of the same nature against the defendant was withdrawn by the police. Police v. Oudaille, Waitahuna.— /The defendant was charged with having, on the 19th day of July, sold two glasses of liquor, not htwinej a license to do so. Pleaded Not Guilty. Samuel Millad/, being sworn, deposed — I was in the store of defendant on last Tuesday. 1 was aloiio in the store. I saw a man of the name of Ferrara outside. He came in whilst T was there. I asked him to have a drink. He said "Yes." T asked him what it would be. He answered "the master knows." He filled a glass of dark brandy to the old man. I had a whisky previous. Wo had two more afterwards, which Mr. Oudaille served. Mr, Oudaille meantime had gone to dinner. Cross-examined by Mr. Oudaille. — I don't recollect what you was doing when I came to your store. Tt looked very nice. It was very ornamental. There were decanters on the shelves, and all full too, and plenty of shoe leather. I swear that you served me with whisky. 1 know the difference between whisky and gin, I called for the whisky after I got the biscuit, to wash it down. The brandy was very good. Mr r Ferrara, being called, stated that being a foreigner he would require an interpreter. Joseph Cross came forward and acted as interpreter — he being an Italian, and was conversant with the language of witness. — I recollect seeing Millady in defendant's store last Tuesday. T was standing outside with a child in my arms. When he came he asked me to have a drink, to which I had no objection. We had ginger wine. We had it out of a bottle. Both glasses came out of tho same bottle. He threw- a shilling down and got biscuits and sixpen.ee returned. It would not be possible for money to pass without my seeing it. I was in the storo all the time that he was. I did not serve him with any drinks. It was about dinner time. Cross-examined by Police. — =1 heard the last witness calling for biscuits. He asked me if I would have a drink. Had one. 1 swear that Millady was drinking" ginger wine. Being asked how he knew what Millady was saying in the store, he answered that he was accustomed to conversations about brandy, whisky, and ginger wine. The Bench summed up, and from, all the circumstances of the case, found the defendant in the sum of £10 with costa of Court, failing payment, distress and imprisonment. Police v. Mary Jane Raid. — The defendant was charged with having, on the 16th July, sold two glasses of liquor, not having a license so to do. Samuel Millady, being sworn, deposed — I know the defendant. I was in her house on the 16th inst. 1 asked if I could get a bed. She answered that she had no accommodation, but I could get any other refreshment. There was another party in the room. I asked him to have a drink. We had one. I had whisky and so had he. Cross-examined by Mrs. Reid. — T saw you twice on Monday last. I had tea and coffee. Ellen Foster, being sworn, deposed — I don't recollect seeing the last witness in your hmise on Saturday tlie 16th, nor serve him with liquor. I never saw Mrs. Reid sell liquor to any one. I have been their six weeks. 1 don't remember the last witness leaving a shilling on the table. I saw him on Monday evening. He had tea and bread and butter I think. I saw him a r fain in the hoxxse about nino o'clock. When he came in he had a lantern in his hand. He asked a man to have a drink, the man- refused, lie then went out. He had nothing at all. Cross-examined by Mr. Percy — My duties are a housemaids. I wait at the table sometimes when Mrs. Reid is busy. I never saw bottles being taken out of the bed-room on Saturday. A good many come in that I don't know. Tea and coffue aro the only beverages sold in Mr. Reid's horise to my knowledge. H. A. Robinson, being sworn, deposed — I recollect whilst sitting by defendant's fire on Tuesday, the witness Millad?/" came in with a lantern in his hand. He asked me if I would have a drink. I told him I did not eire for it, as it was just after tea. He then asked for some tea, and got served. I saw him leave. Cross-examined by Mr. Percy. — I am not a boarder at Mrs. Reid's. I have gone in- often for refreshment. On that occasion- 1 was there as a friend. I am satisfied that it was on Tuesday I saw him at Mrs. Reid's. At this stage Mr. Percy asfod for an adjournment, vrhich was granted to Thursday, the 28th inst. Police v. Williams. — Joseph Williams was charged with having sold three glasses of liquor, on the 18th July, not having a license so to do. Pleaded Not Guilty. Samuel Millady, being sworn, deposed — I know the defendant. I was in his house this day week, about seven p.m. The mistress was present when I went in. We hnd a conversation about matters in general. She gave me a lantern. She would accept no payment, and I thought the least thing I could do in return for her kindness was to shout a glass or two.

Tho mistress went into an inner room, and brought out a bottle of brandy. She opened it. I asked the defendant aod another party what would they have. We all had brandy. I paid for them. He could have seen me put the half-crown down. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams. — I was sober when I was in your house. There wore three glasses put down on the counter, I remember leaving your house. Samuel Chine, being sworn, deposed — I have seen the last witness before, I saw him at defendant's houso some day last week, or the week before. I board and work with the defendant. When he came in he asked for biscuits. I did not hear defendant call Buckley out. T never heard the last witness ask for any drinks. He could not have asked without my hearing. I did not see any money pass. Buckley was not present at all on that evening. Mrs. Williams being called was not available as a witness, as the charge was, to a certain extent, a criminal offence. This closed the case. The Bench remarked that the evidence was very conflictory, and that upon a material point, viz., the presence of Buckley. Dismissed!