MASTERTON-THIS DAY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1387, 25 May 1883, Page 2

MASTERTON-THIS DAY.

James Hitch—Ghdrned with being drunk and using indecent language, Tho police proved that the accused when in ',he lock-up was most disorderly. The defendant pleaded that he was sixty-four yean old, and had never been in trouble before. Fined 10s for drunkenesa and 20s for obscene language. The accused—"This .will ba a warning to me." The wife of the acouied then appoared in the box, pleaded guilty, and was fined five shillings, Thomas Eager then entered the hoi and pleaded guilty to being drunk in the Theatre Royal on the preceding evening,. —Fined ten shillings. Benjamin Eaynor was charged with supplying intoxicating liquor to .Walter Ockenden on May 17th. Mr Beard appeared for defendant, and admitted that Walter Ookendea was under the prohibitory clauses of the Aot. Sergeant M'Ardle deposed that on the 17th inst he saw Mr Ockenden standing near Mr Evens' shop. He Baw the accused come up to Ockenden, Eaynor took from his person something and gave it to Ockenden. Witness slipped up and took it from the lai ter, He tound it to be a email bottle of whiskey. Ockenden was endeavoring to conceal the bottle under his vest when witness took it from him. He accused Eaynor of supplying the liquor. He found that the grog was obtained from Wagg's Hotel, but could not before find out who supplied Ockenden. The fact of Ockonden being prohibited had at his request been notified in the looal papers. To Mr Beard-Witness told him he saw the accused come from Wagg's. 'Did not find out who received the liquor from Wagg'B. He was close to Ockenden when the bottle was handed over. He followed the pair and overtook them at the blacksmith's shop. It was a bright moonlight night, bat they did not see him. Ho was in plain clothes, He did not take the bottle out of Ookenden's pocket, but out of his hands. The bottle produced was the one taken. It contained whiskey. Mr Beard—Did you taste it 1 Sergeant M'Ardle-Yea, I generally do (a laugh) i Mr Beard-I don't dispute that, '■■ Mr Beard for the defence pleaded that the defendant had no legal knowledge of the prohibition order, The order had not been advertised, >' The Court said the knowledge might'he inferred by the surrounding circumstanceswithout direct proof. It thought ; therewas sufficient circumstantial proof' of a : knowledge/ '.'''. "[..' The defendant called stated—! met. Ockenden on tho day referred to.* He said I want to speak to you Ben, and I walked down the street with him. At the blacksmith's shop door the Sergeant stopped him, and I \valked,ori round the corner of ifri'dpn't think he spoke two words to me (ill- the Sergeant came,tip'.; I did not know it was the Sergt,.umfl'ho came up and accused me of supply jog.j,t, I did not know the man had snch a thing as whiskey on him. .1 never had the bottle in my hands. I had'nt been in Wagg's house for three weeks. The barmaid said I was not the mau. She .told the Sergeant so. She knew me, as I was working there in the spring. Since-I-have been in Masterton five years, I have never taken whiskey out of an hotel. To Sergt. McArdle—l swear that: Ockenden tapped me on the shoulder. I could not say whether I made a.circle round Mr Ockenden. It was hot round the end of the shop when youcameup to' us, you caught him up on tha footpaths When I saw you I went a littleifaster, but hot to get out of your way, ■-.■■■. •■,,, ( . To the Court—l never had that bottle in my possession. I never gave anything at all to Ockenden. '-■"-'- Walter Ockenden jailed remember on the night of the 17th inst, seeing Mr Raynor. I was standingopposite the Club-Hotel. He came along the street, I said "Good evening Ben, I want.to speak to you," He walked down the ; street with me. I wentround the corner "of, tie black-' smith's shop to speak] with him. Just as I turned'the. corner 1 saw the Sergeant, I had; a drop', of whiskey; in a;bottle.and was.-going- to-take: a drink and give Ben one. \ I had the bottle an hour, and a half beforei I'saw Ben. He did not know that I had it. The Court—Where did you get'thebottlor;;;/.;■'.,;;' ; , .;: , ;::::-'' ; Mr Beard objected to this question, but the Court insisted upon it.

The witness—l don't know where I got it. I have got a dozen bottles planted about.' '}}__■[ '..'■' The: Court—! shall detain you,■ in custody till you do answer it. '\fti ■ The;.witaess-I had had it stowed away in a bush over a'.week. r.'You might find half a dozen bottles in "the same bush now. I positively don't know where I got it from. The Court—Where ia the bush 1 The accused—ln Bannister-street, opposite Dixon's estate, J toot a bottle of brandy, down the other day, l and planted it so carefully that I could not find it myself.-. The; Court—-Where: did you get it from? Is the answer you are giving an honest one 1 The Witnes? (after consideration)— May I wk for an adjournment for an hour? The Court—Aflßwer the question first and I will think about the adjournment afterwards. Witness—l can't tell, you where I got that particular bottle. The Court consented to the case standing over for an hour, At the expiration of the hour W. Ockenden ; re-appeared,in the witness box and said,'"l have never seen the bottle." (The'bottle having been:produced.) I cannot sav where I got "it.. •.■■•■':".:''■ ':■'■ . The Court-" Where did ..you get .the contentsi of the bottle!" ■.• Witness—lcannot say. The Gourt-r-Did you get it from the defendant. '"Witness—Most positively not. Sergeant McArdle was mistaken. To SergeantMcArdle—My memory is not distinct whether T brought the bottle tip fromhomeor picked it up on the road. The Sergeant—When I appeared, did not Eayner make off as fast as ho could? ; Witness—No. .The Court—Did you taste the liquor? Witness—No.- ■ I had had two good glasses of whiskey before' I ■ left home. •I give Sergeant McArdle credit for doing his duty, but he is certainly mistaken in this case. Sergeant McArdle-HacT you tho bottle in your possession an hour before I met you? Witness—l believe two hours. Annie Neilson, barmaid at Prince of Wales Hotel, on being sworn, said she remembered on tho night of the 17th inst.,.Sergeant McArdle coming to the hotelvand asking her whether .she had supplied any liquor in a bottle similar to the one produced. She had supplied the liquor, and to make certain had marked the bottle with the letter N. Two shillings worth of whiskeywas supplied. Did not know the person it' was supplied to j it was not accused. .;■''.•' • By Mr. Beard-Could not swear to the bottle. Did not mark it at the time. It was a very common kind of bottle. Often supplied liquor in bottles of the same kind. • , '• Mrs Ockenden sworn remembered .coming up to the town on the 17th of May with her husband, between 8 and 9 p.m. Saw a bottle taken from him. 'Believed Mr Hay nor gave it to him, as she saw him talking to her husband. Saw him go into Mr Wagg's, and after, wards-pass Mr Hooper's shop door. Her' husband was then standing bv Mr Evens', She had left Mr Ockenden to go to Mr Hooper's. Mr Ookenden did not go to tho hedge for anything on the journey up to the town. She had told Sergt. McArdle and Constable •Fleming she believed Mr Raynor was supplying Mr Ockenden with liquer, and asked them to watch him. To Mr Beard—l saw the Sergt. and Constable Fleming by Mr Hooper's .shop, Saw the Sergeant take a bottle, either from Mr Ockenden's coat or waistcoat, Did not know what was in the bottle, The bottle was taken from him on the piece of ground next Mr Even's. I believe the bottle produced was the one taken from Ockenden. Mr Ockenden did not, to the best of my belief, leave my side all the way up to the town onthat evening. Mr Ockenden. went home with me about half an hour afterwards. His Worship, in giving judgment, said the case was not sufficiently strong to support a conviction. He could quite sympathise with the yife for her anxiety topreventliquor being supplied to her husband, and her thanks were due to the police for their prompt efforts to aid her, but still the defendant had taken itupon himself to swear • -solemnly-,.-that he had not handed Ockenden the liquor, and Ookenden . had corroborated his evidence, and a conviction could not be given. In his •(theßMi's) own mind, however, there was still a grave doubt on the matter. The defendant;—lam as innocent as you are yourself, your Worship. Sutton v Murdock Mclennan.— Breach of Sheep Act. , Mr Bunny appeared for the prosecu* tion.. / The defendant did not appear. Donald Muurb, sheep Inspector for 'the Hawkes Bay . District,' saw MoLennon driving sheep on' the 29th of March last from his district to Mataikuna in the Wellington district. The.Hawkes Bay district was a clean one. The flock driven consisted of two thousand sheep, . John Harvey, manager of Akiteo station, deposed that he saw .the defendant driving the sheep on the date in question.. ■ W. A. P. Sutton, sheep inspector, deposed that the defendant did not give him notice of his intention of bringing sheep from the Napier' to the.Waira rapa district. The latter district was an : infected one. . ; .Mr Bunny said he wai.instructed not to press for more than a minimum penalty. , v The Court inflicted a penalty of ten pounds, 'twelve ; pounds fifteen shillings = for. costs- and witnesses expenses. John Lang v John Stamford—Kent L2 16s. Judgment for amount and COStSV---'"v : !'-'" : ■'■]■ ■■i A' =R.■' Bunny ;V Charles Gibbs Beckett.'- i -Debt-£lO on'a. promissory note, less £6 paid'in. since action was brought. Judgment, for £1 and costs ,255,[/;.' :':'rl0OlI .it ~i.: l •'■■'■ • i .Thompson and SellarvJohnPrenter. —Debt; r ;J6l;jM£ judgement for amount and costs.