Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE LICENSING ACT

SEVERAL ALLEGED BREACHES, A FINE OF £lO. James Hall was charged in th«» Magistrate's Court at Mastcrton yesterday with keeping liquor for sale between October 20th, 1911, and Oastuary 6th, 1912. Mr M. Lavery, who appeared for accused, objected to there being no specified dates in the information on which liquor wa6 kept for 6&le. Has Worship said that where the> police could give dates they should certainly do so. Sergeant Miller said he could notf prov anything on specified dates, but in future he would endeavour to give the dates. 'Nathaniel Miller, sergeant of police at- Ma'sterton, said that on January, 6th, accompanied by Constables Brown and Dunjphy, lie went to accused's shop in Bannister Street to execute a search warrant. When! ! witness explained his business, ao- [ eused assisted him in the search. They found two empty whisky botflies, a lemonade bottle and: a glass.All of these articles melt of whisky; Constable Brown also produced a bottle of whisky, which Hall said he obtained from McLean, and, the latter said he (McLean) got it from Hall. Accused said McLean did not get it from him. Continuing the search, witness found a bottle of whisky in a ibag on Ball's motor bicycle. Accused said this belonged- to a man named Grubb.

To Mr Lavery: asked accused if he had a bottle of whisky on the bicycle, and he said he had. Charles McLean, a shepherd, said he went into Hall's shop on the nigh* •in question', and bought a bottle of ■whisky off Hall, for ■which he psid 10s. When first asked by Constable Brown if he bought the whisky from Hall, he denied it, but admitted it when pressed. To Mr Lavery:, Witness got twobottle® of whisky from Carterton on the Thursday, and six bottles of beer. When accused was pcesent, he denied! buying the whisky • from him, but admitted it later when. Hall was absent. He was not drank, but got bamboozled when he was questioned. The police did not ask him to give evidence, or tell him that if he pleaded guilty to the charge pending against himself he would get off light-

' Constable Brown, stated that on tha lie 'saw: a, motf [ ', going; into HaWs shop;. Bfo. appear eel v .•'tp'>l)e : -'qij^-.: ; flober then, /'antfr- : 'wh«ti"' ! fif ■ 'fee was under tJie. of; liq«or. Qii December. lStb, between $ aiwt &30 p.m., he saw eighteen, men, .gointo accused's shop,, sometimes singlly, sometimes in twos and threes. When they came -out some of,.them appeared to be under the influence of liquor. On the Sunday nigh* before New Year's, Day, defendants shop} was' dosed all that evening: On the night of January 6th he saw a maik whom he believed to be McLean, gc; into accused's shop. Had come outf* immediately afterwards, jumped on his motor bicycle and rode away. He came back in ten, or mftbeeDk minutes, and entered the shop, a man whom ; he believed : to be McLean); f lowing him in. A few minutes- lat<v ! witness, with Sergeant Miller, t Te3 the pi»mises, Constable Dunphy remaining outside. He saw McLean coming out of a small room, and Hall came- after him. He asked McLean if he had any liquor on him, and MoLean: said he had. Witness found a bottle of whisky in McLean's pocket. McLean said the whisky was given to him, but would not say where he got it. Later on McLean made a statement to witness that he got the whisky, in Hal's shop, having ..arranged with accused to get it for him/ He said he gave Hall 10s for it;/ Accused ■was not present then, but afterwards witness told him what McLean had , said. Hall said he would take his oath that 3:feLe<ui did not get. whisky from him, McLean was pre- • sent when witness accused Hall of selling the whisky. Witness afterwaaxLs found an empty bottle and •glass in the little room, at .the -side of the'.shop. He was present when, the Sergeant found the bottle of whisky in a bag on Hall's bicycle. He heard Hall say that he got the whisky from a man named Gruhb, who brought'it from the Taueru Hotel for accused the previous day. Witness subsequently spoke to Grubby who said he knew nothing about the • whisky.. To Mi- La very: He would riot say that the man who entered. Hall's shop on the 20ith went there to purchase

liquor. Evidence was given by Constable Bird as to seeing me«i going in and out of. the defendant's premises. For the defence, Mr Lavery raised several technical objections, but these were over-ruled by tile Magistrate. Giving evidence on his own behalf, the accused (James Hall) stated t&at Con stable Brown entered his premises by himself. McLean was just leaving the premises, and Constable Brown pushed him back into the premises, saying, "In or out." Sergeant Miller arrived a minute or two later. Constable Brown, closed the door aJid questioned McLean before the Sergeant arrived. There were two ladies in the sho'p besides McLean and the constable. Constable Brown accused McLean of coming out of witness' office, and McLean denied having done so. The constable then asked witness if McLean had riot come out of his office, and witness replied that lie had not. Constable Brown then felt McLean, and said "You've got a bottle of whisky." McLean admitted having the whisky, birl stated that §ie had brought it in with him. The Sergeant then came in with a search warrant, and searched the premises. AM he found was an empty whisky •bottle, a flask and a lemonade bottle. It was not true that McLean had paid witness 10s for the whisky. The bottle of whisky "found on ivitness' bicycle was obtained from one Gnibb. It was a gift. By Sergeant Miller: Witness' correct name was Hall-Wilson. It appeared on one part of the electoral roll a>s Hall:, and on another as Wlir £on. Witness had informed the Constable, when he came for.bis name, iimt it was Hall-"Wilson. Witness did not know why Grubb gave him the bottle of whisky, excepting that they were going for a spin together. Witness received £2 p?r'week to look after the ''Talkerie?.'' May Benge deposed that she was in Hall's shop when Confiable Brown arrived. The Sergeant was just behind the Constable. The bitter asked McLean where be .<>;ot the whisky, and !:•-> S'ii'l he hail it dven to hi'ri'. Witness was r> the shep when McLean ••■aine in. McLean did not come fr;<m

Hall's office while witness was there. Witness did not see Hall g>ve McLean- a bottle of whisky or «^" th '"« el**. Hall was in the oth<-o while Mcwas there. By Serwviit Miller: There was. no c ., H i versa turn between' Constable Brown and McLean, before the Sergeant arrived. . Adelaide Man sell deposed to having been in liall's shop one night when Constable- Brown arrived. She did not :-e;- any person coming out of Hall's office while she vas there. Some old man was in the shop at the time. "Witness did not see Hall give anything to McLean. James Ferguson, motor car driver, deposed that he went to tho Taueni on January 3rd with Hall. The latter called at the Taueru Hotel and procured a bottle, which looked' like a ■bottle of whisky.

Onirics McLean, re-called, swore that Sergeant Miller and one of the Constables were at the door of the shop together.- They . both pushed witness hack.

Constable Dunphy swore to Sergeant "filler and Constable Brown entorin.o; the shop together. William Beach Tngrain, licensee M the Taueru Hotel, deposed to Hall ■calling at his premises and pula-bas-in g drinks. He could not re ncinb-M-Hall purchasing a bottle of Walker's whiskv. Witness thought be only tad the square bottles in stock. Ho v.oH-d mot swear that Hall had not pit revised a bottle of whisky. His Worship said there -.vas a 'great deal of contradictory c'.-;,'i2-/K:e Tn tho case. At the same time, lie felt that he must hold that there had been a sale. The evidence of the defendant was unsatisfactory. -

Sergeant Miller asked that tit-3 maximum penalty be inflicted, as the accused had been suspected of carrying on this trade for some time. His Worship said he had to deal with the case before him, and coukl not be influenced, by suspicion. A fine of £lO and 9s costs would be imI posed, -in default one month's imj prisomuent. Three days would be J given in which to pay the fine.. / Charles McLean-, for being found oin ! the premises of James Hall when a I warrant was being issued under the I Licensing Act, was fined 20s and 7s i costs.

Henry Wibon, for whom Mr Lav-j ery appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on. January 11th, given an order for liquor intended to be taken into a. No-license district without notifying the person from whom the liquor was purchased of his intention to do so. Sergeant Miller deposed that the defendant and one or two others came in by the' Tinui coach. Witness" saw the defendant, and found that he was in possession of a bottle of whisky and a bottle of beer. Accused said the bottle of beer belonged to another person. William B. Ingram, licensee of tlie Taueni Hotel, deposed that the accused had purchased a bottle of whisky from him without signing an order. The party with the accused purchased several bottles of beer. The accused, on oath, swore that he had purchased only a bottle, of whisky at the Taueni. One of his mates purchased beer. They consumed all the beer on the road excepting lone bottle, which witness put in his pocket on the arrival of the coach. George Jackson deposed that he had purchased two bottles of beer at the-Taueni, and his mate McWilliams bought two. Three of the four bottles were consumed on the journey, the fourth bottle was picked up by Thompson on..the arrival of the coach. Bis Worship said the evidence in this case did not disclose an offence. The ca.se would consequently be dismissed. Alexander 0. Scrimgeour was charged that, between 20th October, 1911, and 15th January, 1912, he did keep liquor far sale in the No-license j district of Masterton. Mr J-irdan appeared for the defendI ant, entered a plea of not gaiilty. | He admitted that four dozen bottles of beer a week had been' ordered by the defendant for some weeks. Sergeant N. Miller deposed that on the 15th of this month he executed a search warrant on the premises of the defendant. He was accompanied by Gonsfoables Brown, and Dunphy. The defendant told them to search away. •They went upstairs with Mrs Scrimgeouir. When they arrived at the old portion, of the building, Mrs Scrimgeour unlocked a door, and witness saw a box containing ten bottles of Bxirridge's beer. There were about eighteen empty bottles in the room.

Witness asked whore- tho four dozen bottles were- which had been ordered on, Saturday. Witness went into the bar and saw Mr Scrimgeour. He found there five empty bottles of the "Tui" brand beer, and two of Bur-, ridge's. He asked Mr Scrimgeour | what tho bottles wore doing there. ' Defendant said people brought beer into the house to consume, and ho could not stop them. On the previous Saturday witness had called upon Mr Scrimgeour. He found on that occasion nine bottles of boor of four dozen which had been ordered. Mr Jordan submitted that no offen ee had been disclosed. No evidence 'had been, called to show that men were coming in and out of the premises in a drunken condition. Under the Act, a person was entitled t"o Hiring a gallon of beer a day into a uN'o-fficense district. There were six members of tho defendant's family. Mir Jordan submitted that there was I not sufficient evidence for the prosecution to call for a defence. His Worship held that there was evidence sufficient to require an explanation. Alexander C. Scrimgeour, on oath, deposed that lie was the tenant of the Prince of Wales Hotel. He had been in the. habit of ordering four dozen of beer a week from Mr Bur-ridge. He ■bad a grown up family of six. He lhad never sold any liquor. Ho did not believe in- sly-grog, selling. H'e had been for over thirty years a hotel keeper, and had never previously been before the Court. He occasionally gave beer away. He had tried to prevent people bringing liquor to the house. His wife kept the key of the room in which tho liquor was stored. He could not tell why over three dozen, bottles- of beer should be con.sumod in three days. He gave beer occasionally to his boarders, but received no payment for it. Lewis Wixon, clea-k, deposed that ibe had been a hoarder at Mi- Scrimgeour's for some months. He had seen no beer sold in, the. house, and did not buy any himself. He had frequently had beer given him at his meals, and for supper. Another boarder gave corroborative evidence.

His Worship said that, in view of the quantity of liquor taken to the premises, there was certainly grounds i : or- suspicion. He was not satisfied, (however, tha. an actual sale had been, proved. At the same time, he pointed out- that to supply liquor to boarders who paid for their board was sailing close to the wind. It had [been held to be an offence to supply liquor with a meat which was paid for. His Worship said he would reserve his decision-, in order to allow him to look into certain authorities quoted. Mary -McGuckian, an, employee at the Prince of Wales Hotel, was charged with keeping liquor for sale. The accused, who was represented by Mr La-very, pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Miller deposed that since 7th the accused had ordered twelve dozen of beer. Witness, in the execution of a search warrant, had gone to a room occupied by tlie accused, and found thirteen 'empty bottles. AVitness asked what had ibeoome of the three dozen bottles ordered oh the previous Saturday. The accused said she had consumed it. In. answer to a. question' as to what had become of the empty bottles, the accused had said that they had been sent back. The accused was a hardworking woman, who went out washing. There was no sign, of drink on the accused when witness made the . sear oil.

His Worship there was evidence that there had been excessive' drinking by the acecused, but no evidence of a sale. I'ne case, would be dismissed on the accused taking out a prohibition order against herself."

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19120120.2.23

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10533, 20 January 1912, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,446

THE LICENSING ACT Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10533, 20 January 1912, Page 5

THE LICENSING ACT Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10533, 20 January 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert