INTERESTING LICENSING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 23 August 1913, Page 5

INTERESTING LICENSING CASE.

ALLEGED SALE ONE CHARGE DISMISSED. »

FINE OF £5 ON THE OTHER.

In the Magistrate's Court at Mai; terton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., William Eagle was charged with (1) having sold liquor without a license on August 12th; and (2) having supplied liquor to a native named Moko Kingi, within the proclaimed Maori district of Rongokokako. Sergeant Miller prosecuted, and Mr T. Jordan appeared for the defendant, wlio pleaded not guilty. William M. Halley, hotelkeeper at the Taratahi, was the first witness referred to in the information.

Mr Jordan stated that he presumed Mr Halley was being called to prove the quantities of liquor sold to the defendant. He submitted that this was not evidence concerning the sale referred in the information.

His Worship ruled that the evidence of the purchase of liquor was material to the case.

Witness Halley deposed that he had been a hotelkeeper at the Taratahi for about four months. He knew the defendant, wjio was one of his customers. The defendant took, on an average, about a case of whisky and three or four dozen of beer every week. The whisky cost £3 os a case, and the "Tui" beer a shilling a bottle. Witness did not think the defendant could afford, to give , away the quantities of liquor he purchased. On August 14th the defendant procured three dozen of beer and a case of whisky from witness, and paid for it. There was no stout in what defendant purchased. Under cross-examination, witness stated that lie had no knowledge that defendant was buying liquor as agent for other people. Sergeant Nathaniel Miller stated that about 2 p.m.-on the 14th inst., accompanied by Constables Fergusson, Dunphy and Penson, he went to the residence of the defendant in a motor car. Witness executed a search .warrant for liquor. He saw two men there, whom he recognised as from Masterton. They were having their dinner. Witness told them that if liquor was found on the premises they might have to answer fortheir, presence. Defendant stated that the men were going out shooting. One of them (O'Halloran) said he was there to procure eggs for his mother. " Witness opened the door of a cupboard and found a half-bottle' of whisky and ay-bottle containing beer. Mrs Eagle, who was at the table, said, "You're not going to have my gin.". She went into another room and procured a bottle of gin. Witness 6aidt he would have to take it. Mr Eagle then said, "Come along Sergeant." *He took witness into a room that contained very little furniture, but about thirty lockers. Defendant stated that the lockers had been those which had been I in use at the Club Hotel. One of the lockers was opened. This contained a bottle of whisky and several bottles of beer. Another looker contained twelve bottles of whisky, which defendant claimed as his own, Defendant said there l was liquor in-the other lockers, but it did not belong to him, and he had not got the keys. Witness asked who the lockers, belonged to, but defendant refused to give the names. Witness saw/that one of the lockers had bfeen. damaged, and asked who had done it. Defendant gave the name of a person who had been out of the Dominion for 18 months. Witness asked for something with which to open the lockers, and defendant brought in a small meat-chopper. Witness found two dozen of Watson's whisky, and 4| dozen of beer ("Tui" and Staples) in the lockers. There were al«o two empty lemonade crates in the room-, and a crate containing If dtfzen of lemonade. Witness asked defendant where he had procured the liquor. He replied that he got the stout from Halley's. He would not say from where he had procured the whisky. He also Stated that he had not- purchased the beer. Witness asked to whom the beer belonged. Defendant said it belonged to quite a number, but he would "fiot state their names. •Witness asked if Moto Kinki (a native) and two others had been at the house two replied that He had. He said he had business with Moto Kingi and Kingi drove him home in his car, together with Holland fwd Savage. Witness* stated that he had "shouted" twice for the three men, and had given tte Maori a small bottle of stout to take home to his wife.. Defendant stated that neither of the men had paid for the liquor, and that neither of them had a locker. Witness said he would have to take the liquor he had found. Defendant went out, and on returning said, "Dunphy has found a dozen of beer in the chaff." Dunphy brought the liquor into the house, and it was put into a sack. The whole of the liquor was placed in sacks and brought to Masterton. Altogether there was dozen of beer, 2 dozen of whisky, a bottle of gin, several other bottles, and a bottle that Mrs Eagle said "contained something that would make you drunk very quick."

His Worship: Did you sample it? Sergeant Miller: I did not!

Mr. Jordan: Did you tell the Maori that if he made a clean breast of the business he would not be prosecuted for furious driving? Sergeant Miller: I did not!

Did you tell him he had been guilty of furious driving?—l told Mm he h<ul

been driving forty miles an hoar* and also ten miles an hour. Why did you go and gee him ?•—I did not go and see bim. Ho cam® to see me. ~ V So that" you might use the third degree?—l do not use the third degree. Why did you tell the Maori he had been driving forty miles an hourP—— 1 tried to find out the facts of th» case * . i Did you ask the Maori if no naa been drinking ?—I asked him what liquor he had consumed. Under further cross-examination, witness stated that he had ed from the Maori that he x had not been driving furiously, that he was not drunk on the occasion, and tktt he had consumed certain liquor. Witness had known Eagle as a hoteHceflper, and was not aware of there being any black marks against him. Witness had been told by Savage -ihvfc he drank nothing at Eagle's. Witness had-an interview with Holland. Mr Jordan: Did he come and e» you ?—He did. Did you not send for him ?—Of course I did. It is not likely that he would come of his own accord!

Mr Jordan: Then why did you not tell us the whole truth instead ef leading the Court to believe that Holland voluntarily came to see yon? The evidence of Sergeant Milter was corroborated by Constables Penson and Dunphy. The latter saidl*a had continued, a search in other, portions of the defendant's premises. He found a bottle of wine and a little brandy and whisky in another part of the house. .He (Dpphy> with Constable' Fergusfeon then aearcfce#' the outbuildings. Witness was going to a chaff-bin. 'The defendant said, "It's no use looking there, I goar* antee you will find nothing. I'll giw you a pound for every bottle you find there I" Witness took a rake pulled over the chaff. He then discovered a dozen, of "Tui" beef. Defendant said, "Well, I'm surprised,' I don't know how it got there." Wit- , ness said he saw well defined vehicle marks on the road leading to defeatdant's house. Witness saw a motorcar containing five people going to the house on one evening. By Mr Jordan: Witness had seen numerous motor cars and motor cycles going to defendant's house. He searched most of the outbuildings a& the place. Constable Fergusson also deposed * to having .been present at the search. He stated, further, that he had seen. " numerous persons going to defend ant's house:

Moko Kingi was next caned, sad demanded an interpreter, but, ,as he admitted -that he could, speak 1 Engj» lish, the services of an interpreter were not granted. In his evidence, Moko said he was a full-blooded Maori and resided in Master ton. He owned a motor car,- which he-let out for hire. On the evening of August 22th, about five o'clock, witness drove Hotland, Savage and Eagle out to Eagle's house. They all entered the kitchen. There was drink oh the table. Witness had a glass of beer, as did also Holland and Savage. Witnses afterwards "shouted"beer for the company, and paid two shillings for it. The others afterwards "shouted" and were supplied with heer. ? Witness saw Holland and Savage pay for drinks. Witness "shouted" agiin, after Eagle had "shouted." The latter "shouted" twice. Witness afterwards botfght a small bottle of English stout to take home to his wife. He paid Is 6d for it. Witness gave the. stout to Tom Holland to take for him, but Holland did not give it back. In returning to Masterton about six witness had an accident with his motor car. Witness went to the police station on. August 14th and made a statement. The police held out no threats to induce him to make the statement. - * Mr Jordan: Witness was in the room about half an hour. During that time, they had eight drinks each. Witness could not «av hotir many beetles were opened. Savage was in the room the whole of the time. Witness saw Savage pay for drinks. He could not say'where the ' bottles were put after tfiey werelised. Defendant had to go out of the kitchen to produre a bottle of stout, for witness: Witness had no conversation with Eagle about paying for a motor trip to the Wellington races. Witness went into the passage ■tfith Mr Eagle, but nothing was said ahout the trip to Trentham. , They went into the passage to make up isome row they had had. They shSbk hands, and then returned to the kitchen. Defendant did not refuse to sell witness a bottle of stout. Witness drove Eagle to the Wellington races, but would not accept payment for it, although payment was tendered. Witness got the bottle of stout , after he had been in the passage. Witness had been asked by the Sergeant if he was drunk, andl he replied that; he was not. Mr Jordan: How many drinks does it take to make you drunk ? Witness: About six. 1 Mr Jordan: And you had eight drinks at Eagle's? Witness: Yes I Mr Jordan: Then you were drunk, it is quite clear. Did you have any drinks before you went to Eagle's? Witness: Yes, two. Mr Jordan: Then you must-have' been drunk. (Laughter.). Thomas Holland, - ; prietor, deposed: lie had visited ■ Eagle's five o'clock on the evening of ."August 12tli. - He went ' out in Moko Kingi's car. in oompany with Kingi, Savage and Eagle. When they arrived at the houses-he butcher was there. Eagle a,sked him to have a glass of beer, and he did so. Witness went out to speak to Eagle about some fowls, and saw Moko Kingi go into the house. Witness dijl not see Kingi have any drink. Sergeant Miller: Do you remember making a statement af the police stntron ? "Witness: I do. ' " ■ Mr Jordan objected to the.Sergeant i cross-examining the witness until it was proved that the witness was hostile.

His Worship (to the Sergeant): You cannot cross-examine your own witness until you prove him hostile. ■ Witness, continuing, stated, that ho had two drinks at the bouse of .hilt paid for neither. Under <• ass-examination,' witness stated thn f Ik* saw no person pay for drinks. Ho did not see Moko King* have any 'drink. Just before leaving the house, witness heard Moko ask Eagle if-he had any stout. Eagle replied that he had not. There was a email bottle on the dresser, and Moko asked for this. Eagle said it. belonged to his wife. . Moko afterwards brought the bottle outside, and witness put it in his pocket. Witness afterwards gave the stout to a.

person who assisted with the car. This way the caise for the prosecution. ' For the defence, Mr Jordan urged that the liquor found on the premises belonged to people other than the defendant. It was kept in lockers. Consequently it was tho duty of the prosecution to prove a specific sale of liquor. In reference to the supply of liquor to the Native, the law on the subject appeared to bo very drastic. The law said that any person supplying liquor to a Xative was liable to a penalty of £SO. Counsel maintained that the giving of u glass of liquor to the Native could not be construed into a sale, Ihe bottle of stout was supplied for the Native's wife, who was not a Native. William Eagle, the defendant, deposed that he was a farmer, residing on the Upper Plain. He had previously been a publican. He was not in the no-license district. Acting on legal advice, he kept a number of lockers on the premises. Some of them were paid for. Witness frequently procured liquor for the owners of the lockers, who had keys. Witness supplied the glasses to the locker-owners. Two of the lockers belonged to witness, and these contained fourteen bottles of whisky, two dozen of beer, and some stout. The case of whisky and the* stout Had been purchased on the day the Sergeant searched the premises. When the Sergeant called at the house with the search, warrant, witness said, "You were lucky to find me at home, >as I was-going o.ut, sh.poting.'' v Wit--ness did not conceal anything. He showed the Sergeant all. the liquor . there was in the house. Oh the night of August 12th, witness, wag driven home by- Moko in -company with Holland and Savage. When they g6t to the house, the butcher was there. Witness said, "Now, we've been all day in Master ton, we had better have a. beer." Witness, Holland and the butcher had a bottle of beer between them. 'Moko and Savage afterwards came in. Witness asked Moko into the passage, and spoke to him about the trip to Trentham. Savage said he wanted to get away. As they were going, there was some beer left in a bottle, and witness asked them to finish it. Holland ftid another glass. Moko might have had a glass, as it was there for him. Moko saw a bottle of stout on the dresser, and asked for it for liis .wife, who was: bad. Witness* at first refused, but afterwards gave it on condition that it was for : his wife. Witness knew Moko's wife, .who was not. a Native., Witness oould not 1 ; say hi W the beer got into the chaff! He wast surprised that the liquor was found there., He had since discovered that it belonged to one of the owners of the lookers, who had put it there at night time. Under cross-examination, witness declined to give the names of the whole of the owners of the lockers. He hfld them in a book at his home. Pressed to give the names of the, owners of the lockers, witness named four persons in the district. / The lockers were paid for onco a year, but he could not say when. Some of the owners called for liquor when they wera going shooting. Sergeant Miller: Are youi aware that one of the supposed owners of the lockers gets more liquor than your lockers would hold P Witness: lam not. I oan'fc say what liquor he gets. Sergeant Miller: Why does he put liquor in your lockers? Witness: I really cannot say. He i does it. * j

Under further cross-examination, witness stated that it was incorrect that he bought a caso of whisky and two or three dozen of beer a« week. It depended largely upon the orders he had. He did not bring the liquor in for himself., He brought it for the Qwnerg of the lockers. A number of witness's' relations visited his House in motor-cars. Charles Savage, motor oar proprietor, plying in Masterton, deposed to going te defendant's house on the date in question in company with Moko Kingi and Thomas Holland. When they got there he Stayed, outside with Moko Kingi. They came in practically " together after putting up the hood of the car. ■Defendant, Thomas Holland and Mo- I ko were in the kitchen. He (witness) did not have a drink, and (saw , no othersi in the kitchen having a I drink. He saw no one having ai j drink while he was there. If Moko swore that he (witness) "shouted" twice, he would be telling a Ke. He (witness) had no liquor whatever while he was in defendant's house. He saw no money paid to defendant while he was there, and did not see a small bottle of stout given to the Native. Cross-examined by Sergeant Miller, witness said he saw* no liquor whatever while a.t the house. He did not know: whether anyone else "shouted" or not. He had taken people to Eagle's on several occa- ( si one. He nevei" saw any liquor there. Questioned by the Magistrate, witness stated that he saw no liquor whatever supplied at defendant's house. He (witness) wag not in the kitciheh for a very long time. This, completed the evidence. The Magistrate said the evidence before the Court on the charge of sell-

ing liquor was unsatisfactory and conflicting. The evidence of the cluef witness for tho prosecution was contradicted by another witness for the l prosecution, and also by witnesses for the defendant. Defendant had stated that the liquor was kept by him in lockers for- other persons, for which he received from each £l, per f year. There was nothing to prevent/ anyone in a licensed -area keeping lookers, for other people. The fact that defendant was prepared to give the names of those to whom the lockers belonged was strong evidence that the lockers did belong to other people, fee oould not see his way to oonvict on the charge.of selling liquor, and would dismiss the case without prejudice. The police oould bring another charge if they secured further evidenoe. On the charge of supplying liquor to a Native, there was evidence that liquor had been supplied. It did not matter for whom it was supplied. On this charge he would enter a convic-tion.-against defendant, who would be fined £5 with costs £1 6s 6d.