ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9655, 20 November 1909, Page 5

ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT.

A HEAVY FINE. AN APPEAL TO BE LODGED. At the Magistrate's! Court, yesterday morning, before Mr R. H. Turton, S. M., the adjournc* case was taken in which Frederick Secombe, Joseph I.ynam, James Kingdon and William Casndy were charged that, on October 21st, 1909, they were found on the premises of Richard Haviland for tho purpose of il'e ■ gaily dealing in liqour and in which William E. Jonep, Herbert Walter Jones, Charles Jones, Richard Haviland <nid Eniiy Haviland, were charged that be «- e en September 25th and October 21st, 1909, they did keep liquor for s".!e in tin NoLicense district of Masterton.

The adjiurnman* i i the previous hearing wis mj'le at the request of Mr C, A. Pownall, counsel for defence, in order that he might he given thr opportunity to call the evidence of a man nimel Sievers, who, i<; was alleged, owned the keg of beer found on the premises, and merely kept it there for his own conveni ence. Co:.in-el also raised the point that the mere fact of anyone order ing any quantity of liquor did not cast upon them any onus. Sergeant Miller called William Burridge tj show the quantity of liqucr that was taken to the house in question.

Mr Pownall said that in the event of an adverse decision it was his intention to appeal in the cise against the Havilands. There was no doubt that a large quantity of liqour had bedii ordered, but it should be remembered that liquor had been ordered in quantities before no-licerise came into force. If people were fined for consuming liquor and being a little bit convivial it would be necessary to fine a large portion of the community. James Kingdon gave evidence as to being in the home playing cardi at the time the police executed the search warrant. He did not have aty liquor and did , not know there was any in the hni3e.

Richar.i Haviland said he had not tried to conceal the liquor, and in fact he had shown the police where to find it.

Emily Haviland, wife of the previous witness, said she had never s Id any liq'ior. His Worship stated that the evi dence of the police in the case againss Haviland was that several people had been seen going in and out of the place during the evening, and on one occasion at least a man came out of the hou-e in an intoxicated condition. There was no tioibt that defendant had had large quantities of liq'ior sent to the house, and

the explanation that he gave was that the liquor was cons imed by his

frioiKs and his iriends' frien Is. His Worship stated he was not prepired to accept the evidence of the defence in this connection. He was of the opinion that the house in question wa3 a place where a good deal of traffic in liquor h»d been done, and he was not prepared to acc?pt the evidence that a man could get large quantities of liquor and give it away to his friends and his f.iends' friends. He would convict and fine determent £35, with costs amounting to £3 Cs. On the application of Mr Pownali judgment W3S held over in the other cases til Friday next pending t'-e lodging of an appeal on the grounl that the mere f_ct of the defendant'ordviing a quantity of liquor did not throw upon him the onus of proof. The case against Charles Jones was dismissed. Mr Pownali contended that the case against Mrs Havilaiid should also be dismissed on the ground that a wife is acting und r compulsion of her husband. She had only received twelve dozen of ale during the period included in the charge which was not such an enormous quantity to cast upon her the onus of proof.

His Worship stated that he would consider the point raised by Mr Pownali, and would decide what he intended to do on Friday next when the other cases came on.