THE LICENSING ACT

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10713, 7 December 1912, Page 6

THE LICENSING ACT

ALLEGED BREACHES AT MASTERTO*.

LEE SENTENCED TO ONE MONTH.

Thomas B. Loo was charged in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S. -M.., with a breach of tho Licensing Act in keeping liquor for sale in a No-license area. Sergeant Miller prosecuted, and Mr G. H. CuUon appeared for the etc fondant. Arthur Thompson, carrier, deposed that on Monday, November 25th, he saw the accused in Dixon .Street, and received an order to procure a cast. of liquor from the Taratahi Hotel. Witness received £M from the acousIcd to pay for the liquor. The money |.was paid to Mrs Douglas, who, with hi young man, supplied the liquor. Witness' told 'Mrs Douglas that Lee lived iu Bannister-street. Witness delivered Hie liquor to Lee, at his house in Bannister-street.

By Mr Cullon : The capo of liquor was' brought openly, and with no attempt to disguise anything. It was not. dark when ifc arrived.

Sergeant Miller deposed that about 8.20 o'clock on the night of November 25th ho was .standing at tho corner of Bannister and Dixon Streets. From something lie observed, ho went to the house of Lee, in Banniyter street, and was followed by Constable Brown. Ho saw Leo and another man carry a case into tho cottage, and place it on top of another case, in tho kitchen. Witness followed them in, but was stopped at the I door by Loo. He afterwards went in and saw the oases. Accused said the cases wero marked that they contained liquor. Witness saw that they wore so marked. Witness asked from where the liquor was obtained, and who was the carrier, but defendant refused ,to make a reply. Witness said- he .suspected that the, liquor was for sale, and 1 uiilcs she got a satisfactory explanation he would get a search warrant. As defendant did not ex-

plain, witness got a warrant and seized the two cases, which contained seven dozen and ton bottles of "Tni" beer. Under ornw-examinatioji, witness stated that the defendant had been only a few months out of goal, after serving a sentence for a breach of fc'ho Licensing Act. The defendant had since hcen working, and. witness had no reason to comylain of his eonduct until, the two'cases in. question In : a. nod. Constable Brown gave corroborative, evidence. Tin's was the case for the prosecution. Sergeant 'Miller remarked that it seemed to him that the quantity of liquor found on the premises was very large for a working man. Mr Oullen contended that the quantity of liquor found was not unreasonably largo. Tho Christmas season was approaching and defendant was

expecting two brothers from Canada. The liquor had been signed for, and the transaction had been done openly. The defendant, on oath, deposed he usually got in liquor for Christmas. On thiy occasion, as hewas expecting las brothers from Can-

Ada, lie laid in a heavier supply than usual. He thought it cheaper to get two eases than one. He had only received one dozen and tiro gallons of beer sinco hj« liberation from goal. He was earning Is 3d per liowvand ivas in a position to pav for the liquor.

Under cross-examination, witness i stated that ha got tlio liquor from Taratahi instead of ordering it from the brewery, because he wanted' it quickly. Witness was in a position to maintain his faraly. When witness was m goal, his children may not have had sufficient clothes -to go to school. They were now well provided for. Witness may have been owing money to tradespeople.

, His Worship: How many have vou in a family?

Defendant: Nino, your Worship. Jlis Worship stated that lie was sorry for the defendant. He had already been twice convicted. It wa« extraordinary that a man with nine children, who had Just come out of <roal should bo found with such a fat-4 quantity of liquor f n his possession iho story about the two brothers "9™ tranada was insufficient Mr CuJlen: It fo tho Christmas SJHi \ T k J'° U *° deal lastly with the defendant, and give him another clumcS,

. 1S Worship: I am here to administer the law, and must do so. ( Mr Culleii: It seems very hard just before-Christmas. He asked that a fine be imposed Sergeant Miller said'the defendant ■had. •already been con-rioted on thre<> occasions under the Act. His Worship remarked that there "'ere no mitigating circumstances in connection with the case. The defendant had previously been convicted. He had no option hut to send [the accused to prison. The least sen- [ fence ho could impose was one month's hard laW. In fixing tins sentence, ~'nc )■ M shlp rcn »arkod that accused iment *'* mmth * ira P™°«-' William Dixon was then charged with having kept liquor for sale in a Ijo-l.ce„se district. He was defended by Mr P. L. Rollings, and entered a plea of not gniltv Sergeant Miller depend that at about nine o'clock on the night of Win be, 26tt , 1C S!K)ke t( , ant at his cottage m Bannister-street which ( n- as llcx t to W s . Witness 1 said. I hear you've got some liquor." Defendant said he had got i n four do*- I en. Witness said, "])o you know I

that you a-ro suspected of selling liq- , -uorP" Defendant remarked that lie hud heard so. On December -iul. witness went to the house with a search warrant. A search was made, | but no liquor could be found. De- I fondant was asked what had become J ;>1 tho liquor, and he replied J -hat the last bad gone on the previous day. Defendant stated that ho ha;l given liquor to various people, including Borough workmen, who supplied him with sweepings from tho street. Defondant said he was getting a dozen of liquor a week from Taratahi, and that he was going to have a birthday party that week. Under cross-examination, witness 'stated that ho had known dofendnat for some time, and had not previously instituted proceedings against liini. Witness was aware that defendant had been a fairly heavy drinker for some years. Ho had ascertained that some of the liquor had been supplied to the persons who had been named, by defendant. Be.sse Lee, wife of Thomas Lee, deposed that on one occasion sho had soon men going in the back way to Dixcn's. She did not, however, see them come out with liquor. "Constable Brown gave evidence-cor-roborative of that of Sergeant .Miller. He stated that lie had made inquiries ' from the Borough workmen, and had found only one who had admitted having received beer from defendant. Of all -the persons mentioned by defendant as having been given drink, witness could find onlv two who admitted it.

Under cross-examination, witness stated that he had not interviewed the whole of the. persons mentioned by tho defendant. No search, of th house had been made until a weekhad elapsed from the receipt of the beer.

Mr Hollings submitted that there was no case to answer. It was unreasonable to suppose that, after a. raid had been made on a neighbour, the defendant was going to immediately resort to the sale of liquor. Moreover, the fact that defendant had been fold that lie was suspected of keeping liquor for sale had induced him to get rid of the four dozen of beer as quickly as possible' There was no evidence of a sale having taken, place. The Court must be uitish'ed that defendant had beer in the house for the purposes of sale. The defendant, on oath; deposed that he had resided in his present

house tor over forty years. At no lime had he occasion to sell liquor. Ho had l)eon in the habit of late of procuring a dozen of boor a weok. On November 25th ho procured an extra supply of live dozen, lie wanted the extra- quantity because a birthday party was being held in his house. One dozen of the live ho delivered to a friend at the freezing works. During the week after lie had got the liquor, he held a festival at, his house. There were ten persons present, and they got rid of a. -considerable quantity of liquor. The fact that the Sergeant told him that he was -suspected, induced him to drink a larger quantity than usual, and to get rid of the liquor a 5.1 speedily as possible. lie had given a considerable quantity away to his Friends, but had never received payment for it. He had been lifty-eight.years in the district. and belonged to one of the oldest families. Ho had never previously been before the Court Under cross-examination, ant denied having stated that he had sold four bottles within a few minutes of the Sergeant having spoken to him. He gave liquor to certain people because they had supplied him with manure.

His Worship said it was unite clear that the defendant had kept a considerable quantity of liquor. There was evidence, however, that there had been ;t good deal of drinking. His "Worship was not satisfied that the liquor wan kept for sale., lie advised the defendant, in future, te keep only sufficient liquor for his own use, and not to be too generous with his friends. The information would ho dismissed.

B. Douglas, licensee of the Taratahi Hotel, was charged with having, on November 2~>th, 'supplied eight dozen of beer to Thomas 1?. Lee, without having given notice to the Court, as

required by the Act, that the. liquor had been b.o supplied; and with having supplied liquor to Thomas T3. Lee, knowing that the same was intended for sale.

.Mr'Moran appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution jj;ave evidence- !o the effect-that a carter named Arthur Thompson had received the l.eer cm a.i'. -.-id'-v from 'i'ln'mm-; 15. I'iOe, and the defendant, had ad.vised {lie. Court tiiat the liquor had heen supplied to Thompson, instead of Let'.

The defence was that. alth:mdi an iiitlci' had been received. I'r.'im ''.'homa.s Lee, the defendant through his wife had, refus.cd to supply the liquor to Loo. The carter Thompson had surned for tlte liquor, and had paid for it. and notice had been sent to the ('curt on the fnllnnin.o- ( ' ; .y that the liquor'had been .supplied to Thompson.

Hi? \vor«.|ii.;i disniif.'.-.ed both iiii'i niations.

i?ich;:rd C-iylls. ]ier>" : .:-e of (],■■ Taueru Hoi el. was with < xpnsine; liquor for sale during; prohibited hours.

Mi- M. La very ap:'onre : ] |V- th, defendant.

After hoarino; the evidence, Tlis! "Worship disniis.'scd the case. George Kills and Charles Load;" wove charged with having committed a breach of the. Licensing Act. ' Sera-ant Miller stated that on Oct-j oher 2!th, at 8.4"> p.m., he visited the ; Taurn Hotel. He say lights in. the ' liar. and went into the building "by the side door. The s.'lirlo of the "bar was open, and the licensee Avay in tlie bar. Thre were five men, incluclinp- Loader and Hills, at the slide, j and they wo.ro in the .act of drinking j beer. Four of the men said they were boarders, hut ho suh.so-quo,: ;■• ascertained, that Hills did not stay a.f the hotel. Hills was fined 10s. wi'h c,:t; :>- v --. Tond-T was fined 20s, with costs 7s.

CURE OP BLADDER DISEASE

From Mr. T. Brown. 64, Bap! isto-fitrepl. Svdnev. X.S.W.. F>lh October. 1.911. ' "Kur several nn.ni.hii 1 :-'r,fi'<. red trnin inflammation i.f the b!a;!e'cr. ami iho ni.i.-l- 'intern' pain in my side- and back. ' My urine tVV.vcd heavy deposits and railed me great p.iin whin pa:.~ir:g it. I li-«t r a ::<>c::l deal id' tlcep at night throm-h the inin. 1 wan terribly reduced in o'.icn-lii and weigh:, and was rapidly g<i'.big worst.'. I was treated homoc'npathieaily v-'iLli very little result, and vari-ms reiiwlies I tried Ceiled to benefit me. I became difhenrtor.cd, as T began to think that T should never be cured. 1 had lost faith in medicine, when at !•>!.--merely io ~-T began to Lake VYaruerV, Safe, (.'nre. From the first, 1 notice a decided change for the better, which gave_ mc confidence-,, and induced me to continue with the medicine.- Very <?• <vi large quantities of ,u,iitty sediment began to piss' away i:i my urine, and 1 began • to feel very much better. The pains from which' I had suffered, left me. and 1 could fdeep well. T have now re-, gained my ;::.:•! v.-tight ;.r. ! slrcngth. The .medicine has made mc no, strong and robust as I was prior to my illncs.*-. and my urinary troubles have eeaeed. From Air. Charles il-cile. 48. Creek «lr>'ei. Cliche, Svdnev.-X.S.W.. 7ih February, 1912.' "I am writim. 1 ; to you io h"t y\> ku the .food Warner's Safe Cure did for me. I had kickcy and bladder trouble, and only look a few hot tier* of it. and it completely cured mc." From Mr Arthur Herbert IJuekiev. 27, ■ i;ie ! ' ";,-• av ;i".e. Surrv Hill?. Sydney, N.S Vv'.. lHth July. 19.1.1. "ft ';.s.!T'Tite mo great pleasure to ir. form you of the wonde; ful eri'cel. Wa;' ncr's Safe Cure had in my case. Fov manv years I had been suffering from catarrh of the bladder. Ike urine being a eh alk v and bloody Piibr.t.ance. T consulted h-ding medie:d specialist.? ir. Brisban-. Sydney, and Melbourne, and ! was. in their opinion, a deomed mini ; in fact, there was no hope of my recovery. I may add that I was a physical wreck. In despair, 1 tried Yv'arncrV. i Safe Cure (without any faith in it). The, ramit was wonderful after the first bottle, so 1 continued with it, and today I stand a- cured mati. have, gained Ph "weight, whilst my urine is a. natural i colour "and passes without pain. I am unable to thank yon enough for all the medicine has done for nu\ and shall bo pleased to recommend your remedy !..> all Bllffei'tM'S."' From Miss Edith Pope, of "Pope 1 * Touring En* ei tamers," wfo writes from TJughendcu. Queens land, under date 4th September. 1911. "Just a line of thanks for your great remedy, Warner's Safe Cure. I have been a great sufferer from internal com plaints, including bladder complaint, and dur ; ng my travels I have consulted many doctors, but only received (slight volicf. l wan advised by several people to try your Safe Cure, but. I may say that I had not much faith in it, tin tif recently I got a very bad turn of bladder, and, acting on advice, F began to take the medicine. After taking the first bottleful I found great relief, and before t had quite finished the second I • was quite, cured. I can truthfully recommend it to any sufferer from inward complaints. You can make use of this lt'Ltcr publicly if you wish, so as to let any poor sufferer know 0% the value of Warner's Safe Cure." r Warner's Safe Cure is sold ly chemi,!s and storekeepers everywhere, both in the original (si>) bottle*, unci in the ft|c0l;ollc feral.