THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 242, 19 September 1872, Page 7

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

LAWRENCE.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Monday, September 16.

Samuel Wootton was charged with, on the sth September, selling liquors, not having been licensed to do so. Inspector Thompson prosecuted, and Mr. M'Coy appeared for the defence. All the witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Inspector Thompson called Archibald K°gg> butcher, Lawrence, who said he could not recollect whether he was in defendant's premises within the last month or not. He had many drinks in his house. Remembered being there along with Cousinsand "Old Bob," but could not say what time, or whether he had a drink then or not.

The R.M. asked this witness, as a sensible man and a Christian, whether it was worth incurring the risk of being prosecuted for perjury. He was in a very unpleasant position, aud probably thought by answering in the manner he had been doing, he was benefiting defendant. He made a great mistake, however, for he was making the case worse. Re-examined — Would not swear to any time unless he took a note of it.

The Resident Magistrate said if witnesses liked to screen their friends at Buch fearful risk to their immortal souls, he could not help it.

John Cousins, butcher, Blue Spur, recollected being in defendant's house, about the previous » Thursday week, in company with Old Bob and Hogg, He had some refreshments, but could not say whether it was water or beer he clrank,

The Resident Magistrate said witness must either answer the question, or leave the box a perjured individual*" "He had sworn he had some refreshment, He could choose his own course. Examination resumed — Inspector Thompson asked the witness who called for~ the liquors. Witness appealed to the Resident Magistrate as to whether he was compelled to answer the question. The Resident Magistrate said he was bound to answer it.

Witness said he called for the liquors. He did not know what drinks the others that were with him had. Could not say whether he paid for the liquor or not. He would not swear that he had not paid for the drinks. He was getting some lollies and biscuits at the time he had the drinks.

Inspector Tnompson asked the witness if he meant to say he went into Mr. Wootton's shop and called for drinks without paying for them. The witness repeated that he could not tell.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy: Did not know when the drinks were served, and could not recollect whether any money passed or not.

Re-examined by Inspector Thompson : Did noh know whether he had paid for the lollies and biscuits, but supposed he would have to pay for them. Robert Asher, more generally known as " Old Bob," was then called. He Sfdd that last Thursday week, he was in Wootton's, in company with Hogg and Cousins. Mrs. Woofcton asked witness what he would take. He replied whisky, which he took. Hogg and Cousins did not drink anything in his presence. Cross-exaimined by Mr. M'Coy: Wootton was not present. Inspector Thompson said this was the case, and drew attention to the 42nd clause of the Licensing Ordinance. The R.M. said that as usual in BUCh cases, the witnesses said as little as possible to against defendaut, There was no doubt in his mind that the liquor had been supplied ; but sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge had not been given. Case dismissed.

Nicholas Mills was charged with exposing liq\iors for sale, not being duly licensed to do so. Inspeotor Thompson prosecuted, and Mr. M'Coy appeared for defendant. Sergeant Morton deposed on the 13th instant, in company with Constable Bamford, ho visited the premises of defendant. He found a cask of beer on tap in the shop, and in another room there was another cask of beer, and three jars containing brandy, whisky, and rum. Witness took samples of the liquor (produced^. In cross-examination the witness stated that the cask of beer not on tap and the other spirits, were not in a bedroom. - lie had tasted the spirits, but could not tell whether it was 25 .per cent proof. The beer was in view of the public. Constable Bamford corroborated the previous witness's testimony, and on cross-examination, said there were any quantity of pint measures and glasses lying about.

Mr. M'Coy said that any person who had an unusually large quantity of liquor in his possession might be subject to an information like the present. The onuß of proving that tho liquor was exposed for sale rested with the prosecution.

ire road the latter portion of 43rd dances of the Licensing Ordinance. He raised the point that it had not been shown that the spirits were 25 per cent proof, and there had been no description given of the beer. He submitted the clauses in the Licensing Ordinance, throwing the onus of proving that spirits exposed were not for sale on the defendant, were ultra vires, as they were contrary to the English law of evidence. Independently of this latter point, he submitted that the case had broken down.

The R M. said so far as the spirits were concerned, the case had not been proved ; but regarding the beer, it had been clearly substantiated. Regarding the argument about the law of evidence, he instanced the case of a man having stolen goods in his possession. The onus of proving that the goods were obtained honestly then rested with the party who had them in his possession. Defendant would be fined the mitigated penalty of £5 with costs.

Donald Campbell, a lad, was charged upon the information of Constable Finmore, with driving his horse on the footpath. After the evidence had been given, the caae was dismissed with a caution.

Henry Whitney, charged vrihh placing three empty cases on the footpath, pleaded guilty. The R.M. dismissed the case upon payment of costs, intimating that in any future case of the same kind, no fine would be inflicted, but parties ound guilty would be imprisoned.