THE LICENSING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10114, 8 October 1910, Page 5

THE LICENSING ACT.

AN ALLEGED SLY-GROG SELLlisvx CASE. TWO MONTHsHIARD LABOUR. Richard Haviland was charged in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday afternoon, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., with having, between January 24th, 1910, and September 24th, 1910, kept liquor for sale within a No-license district, in contravention of the Licensing Act. Mr G. H. Cullen appeared for accused, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Cullen stated that, under section 241 of the Licensing Act, the proceedings must be commenced within three months of the commission of the alleged offence. He was agreeable to the information being amended, although, strictly speaking, he was entitled to ask for a dismissal.

The information was thereupon amended, to make the charge one of keeping liquor for sale between June 24th and September 24th. Sergeant Miller, who prosecuted, stated that during the last three months fourteen dozen and two gallons of beer had been supplied to Haviland by Mr Burridge, brewer, or to another occupant of the house in whicn Haviland lived. The police had seen numerous persons visiting the house. Willie Burridge stated that he was a brewer at Masterton, with a depot at Carterton. The accused had been a customer of witness. After a certain raid, witness refused to deliver any further liquor. During the last three months, however, witness had been in the habit of delivering a dozen of beer a week to either Haviland or .Tones. Since June 24th the quantity delivered totalled 21J dozen bottles. The delivery of the liquor by Burridge's carter was admitted by defendant's counsel.

Mary Ann Savers deposed that she visited the house of Mrs Jones on a recent Saturday, to see if she could get a drop of whisky. She got two shillings' worth from, Mrs Haviland. The accused Haviland was not present at the time. Witness could not say if there was beer then in the house. She asked Mrs Haviland to keep her a bottle of beer for the following Sunday. Witness went home with the whisky on Saturday, and returned on Sunday afternoon for the beer. Mrs Haviland said the beer was all gone, but she _ had "something short." Mr Haviland was present at the time, and was playing cards with a number of men at the table. Witness -saw no indications of drinking. She had something "short," for which she paid sixpence. At the request of Mrs Haviland she had another drink. She at first hesitated, but Haviland said, "Go on, you're a good customer of mine." . Witness had the

drink, and as soon as she got outside she_felt like dying. She went to the house of her son, who accused her of drinking, but she denied it. Witness then went home and went to bed. Her husband had taken some of the whisky she bought, and it had made him bad. Witness, had seen other women in the house during the past three weeks. On one occasion she received a bottle of beer from Haviland, for which she paid Is 6d, putting the monev.on the table.

Under cross-examination, witness admitted having been convicted of theft. Another serious charge had also been preferred against her. She admitted having received whisky from Mrs Haviland on one occasion without paying for it; v , Geo. Sayers, husband of the last witness, deposed that Mrs Sayers brought borne a flask of whisky on a recent. Saturday, and he drank it. After taking a drink, he was confined to his bed for thirteen hours, witli an awful head. Ho was nearly driven mad." "Whisky!" exclaimeil the witness, "it was poison!" His Worship:. It is to be hoped it will be a warning to'you net „to touch it' again. (Laughter). Constable Brown deposed that he

ad been watching the house occu-

pied byHaviland for the last three imonths. On the night of August 13th, between the hours of 7.30 and 10.45, lie saw twelve persons entei and leave the house. He also saw Herbert Jones speaking to different batches of men outside the house. On the following night, between 7.20 and 10.30, lie saw ten persons enter the house.. They would come in batches and enter the house, and leave one at a time. On the night of August loth, between- 7.30 and 11 o'clock, he saw five men enter and -leave the house, on August 17th two, on August 24th four, on August 26th three, on August 29th seven, and on September 2nd ten. On the latter night, two men drove up to' house in a trap, and one entered. 'On September 3rd he saw a man come out of Haviland's, and half-an-hour later lie was three-parts drunk in the street. On September 23rd witness saw four men enter the house, and on of September 21th, five. Witness went to

the house on the night of the latter date, in company with Sergeant Miller. After the warrant was read, Haviland was asked by the Sergeant if there-was any liquor on the premises. Haviland said, "You'll find some beer in the back bedroom." They searched there, and found nine bottles of beer and a whisky bottle containing something which was not whisky, but which was unpalatable. Haviland said they had got in a dozen of beer that day, but had drunk three. He also said they would find some beer in a front room, belonging to "Billy." They sea relied there, and . found seven bottles, besides several empty bottles. Just after they bad finished executing the warrant, two Maoris, in a half-drunken condition, came in by the back door. When they were.asked for an explanation of their presence there, one of them said he had come to see "Billy" Jones about a billiard tournament. The other said he had come with his mate. Asked where they got the liquor which made ~\em in the state they wove in, tuoy said they had been to Carterton. When they had executed the search warrant, "Billy" Jones caifie in. Sergeant Miller asked him when and where he had got the. liquor. Jones replied that he had been to the races, and had left 8s with his step-father with

which to get it. Cross-examined by Mr Cullen, witness admitted that there were several men living in the house, and they might have been in the habit of taking friends there. Tha liquor in the house was not concealed. Constable Anderson deposed to having seen Arthur Jones take three men into Haviland's house on Sunday, July 17th. On later dates he had seen both men and women enter and leave the building. Constable Dunphy gave similar evidence.. For the defence, Richard Havi-

(land said he had previously been convicted of sly-grog selling. Prior to that he had never been before the court. He was not going to be a party to an offence which would render him liable to three months. The statements made by Mrs Sayers were false. Witness had told Mrs Sayers, about a month ago, that she must not come about the house. Witness had sold no liquor since he was convicted. He had a good graphophone in the house, and a number of people had come round to hear it. They also came to the house to sec witness, and to play cards. Witness and his wife consumed most of the beer that came to the house. His wife had been ordered by Dr Ross to take porter or light beer. They had got more liquor into the house before No-lic-ense than since. Sometimes they found that a dozen of beer a week was not sufficient for them, and they borrowed from "Billy." Cross-examined by Sergeant Miller : The beer had cost 8s per dozen. Vvitness had a wife and . two children to keep. The boys paid their board. Since last Christmas witness had earned a good deal. He worked eight days in March, and since then he had worked about half timer He paid no rent, but had to pay a little interest. He could not say how much it cost to j keep the house. By Mr Cullen:Witness had to send many men away from his house. He suspected that sly-grog selling was being conducted in premises near where he lived. People had probably come to his house, thinking that sly-grog selling was being continued. '

Emily Haviland, wife of the defendant, corroborated the evidence of her husband, and denied that she had sold liquor to Mrs Sayers. She had never sold liquor to any person. Her husband provided money with which to keep the house.

Under cross-examination by Sergeant Miller, the witness stated that the contents of the whisky bottle found with the beer in her room was used for killing snails.

3y the Bench: It was not true that Mrs Sayers had purchased two shillings' worth of whisky from witness. Witness could not deny that people had been in the habit of going to and from the house. Mr Cullen, for the defence, stated that when a case was brought on the evidence of an informer, the demeanour of the informer in the box must be considered.

Sergeant Miller denied that Mrs Sayer had given information to the police. She had only been subpoenaed that morning. His Worship asked that the imputation against the police be withdrawn. .

Mr Cullen said he gladly withdrew any imputation in this connection. The police, he agreed, had conducted their case in a reasonable manner. He claimed that the Bench was not entitled to accept .presiimptive evidence, and . the direct evidence of Mrs Sayer was against Mrs Haviland, and not against the defendant. He asked that His Worship take a lenient view of the case.

His Worship said he had no doubt that in this case the liquor had been kept for other purposes than private consumption. It was impossible to believe that a working man, not in constant employment, could require a dozen bottles .of beer a week for his own use. Even if he were in constant work, . the quantity would, be out of all reason. Apart from the evidence of Mrs' Say-: ers as to the sale,the police hadproved that men and women were in the habit of going inland„ but of the: House. It was too great a stretch' of the imagination to expect that: these men went to the house to hear a graphophone. There was not the slightest doubt in the mind of His Worship that the liquor had been kept for sale. He had no option but to impose a term of imprisonment. The accused would bo sentenced to two months' hard labour.

~ William E. Jones was then charged with keeping liquor for sale in the same house as Haviland, and during the same dates. Sergeant Miller stated that a dozen of beer a week had been delivered regularly to the house of accused. Constable Brown deposed to having found seven bottles of beer in the room of the defendant. The accused, on oath, deposed that he had been in constant work for a number of years until quite recently. He had £IOO three or four months ago, and now had £SO. He was in the habit of getting in a dozen of beer a week. He drank most of it himself, and gave some to his friends.

His Worship said this case was a little different to the last. On, account of his youth lie would give accused the benefit of the doubt. He warned him, however, against ordering large supplies of liquor in the future. The information would be dismissed.

His Worship ordered that the beer which had been sei/.ecl should bo destroyed.