R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2634, 28 June 1887, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDAY, (Before S. Yon Sturmer, R.M, and W. H, Beetham, . oiva; oases, •. Jas. Wrigley Y. to recover £25 8s onprpmissory note'.ani ■ interest. ■' .Mr Beard . ..appeared for plaintiff. Mstonit' • claimed with 80s costs fee;. . ' ; .v> ; ' J. Kerby v, John £l' 10s 6d, for making -iinJ.rejpairing' '& pair of. boots. . Mr Beard'.. appealed for defendant. The ..plaintiff evidence as to measuring remarkbg .that as Mr Tuck had one foot larger than the otlsc, the rejected boots were utterly useless to him he being unable to dispose of them, Amusement was caused at this stage, by the production of the boots in Court; and. Mr Tuck, 'with the assistance, of Mr ' Peterson attempting to put tlie boot? on, but without success. H. Peterson on ..being sworn • deposed'- that; the plaintiff had measured ! ..de(endaat correctly so far as tile measurements: could get the boot on it would fit himi To His \V"orßhip: My charge;' for a pair of boots of this descriptionjvould be 265. . If a customer got would take them back. His Worahip gave judgment for defendant, .the boots to be returned to the plaintiff, H. Phillips v. JT. Stferd.~olaim' ) &i 16s for a dishonored cheque! - ' appearance of defendant. given for amountclaimed arid 7s. co^M: Benjamin Aldridge was fined 1? f(Pv hawking within the Borough . witho.ut a license, and was ordered to take but a permit before carryingon his businesi;. again. V;

A. B. Dowdswell v John Tact, claim of 14010s for work, labor and' 'material. Mr Bunny appeared for plaintiff, and.Mr Beard for defendant.: -The sum of £25 was paid into Court. - Tho case occupied a long tirue, a deal of expert evidence'being called. Judg-. ment was given for plaintiff;' for £34. 12s, Court costs 265, Counsel fees £8 Bs, witnesses expenses 1212, Alleged Pbivate Still. • John McDermott was charged on the information of Sergeant Price with having certain unlicensed. articles 011 his premises, used for distilling purposes. Mr Gully appeared on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Beard defended. Mr Gully by permission, the information by adding tho' of the articles found' on defendant'^'! promises at the Taueru, viz., 1 coppeVTi boiler, 11 casks, a quantity of maltiii'<*;t: barley, 2 pieces of copper tubing, and.' a quantity of wash. In opening the case Mr Gully said the information was laid under section 111. of tho Distillation Act 1868, which made it liable for any person oarrying on illegal digtilling to bo fined to an amount not- : exceeding £SOO or less than £SO, or by discretion of the Justices, to ' a sentence of not exceeding two years or leas than six months imprisonment. Sergeant Price in charge of the Masterton Police district, • on oath , . stated that lie knew the accused who lived about half a - mile; off the main road leading to the Taueru. .From' information he received he paid a visit to the place of the accused on Juno 18th in company with Constables Collerton of Tiuui, and Cooper "of Masterton. He met the accused coming from his house, .who by request of witness went back with them to search the place. After reading tho warrant,. the search was commenced when the <: plant referred to was found in the leanto and a ba«k bedroom or pantry. The first barrel found contained what accused called "water," \yitnesß asked for a glass and on testing it found it to bo very good whisky, tha other barrel being more like *' three watergrog." He had forwarded samples . of it to Dr Skey, Government analyst, in charge of Constable Salmon. On making further search nine more barrels were found with tho heads out, several of them being full of fermenting mash, in all about 180< gallons, The boiler (produced) wasi built in with bricks and mud and con- • nected with the kitchen chimnoy. wire strainer and thermometer (produced) wore also found in the sameroom as the copper. In the stables at the back of the house they found a. leather and a tin vessel, whioh emitteJ a strong spirity odour. A sack of crushed barley and a bin containing: four or five bags of crushed oats wer& , also discovered in the stables.. When,/J the accused,was asked what he MM with so many ban-els on his premises fl he said bis wife used them for making beer, and that the copper was used by ;• his wife for washiig purposes/ He" ' said the police would not have cbmo to his place without being laid on, and' ho know the b— man that had informed on him. On the'road at Masterton a man named McLeod sympathised with accused who retorted : ".That it was only you b—- Scotch?-' men who got off, and it was the poor Irishman who always got into it." He(witness) had destroyed about 120 ' i gallons of the liquor. By Mr Beard iTlie boiler is not onsl of ordinary description.. Had seen similar ones in use at various private stills. Did not know if similar onos were usod for boiling: arsenic in. Could \ , not swear positively as to the coil- - •:' tents of barrel Ko 8. T'v ; Constable Collerton, of Tenui, cor- a roborated the evidence of last witness',: with- the exception that: the. iew : leather bag'was found in the stable ind the old one in sthe house. - On ; making a'second search he found the ' )n in tlw stable. Tlfe tubing-•; spirits, and smelt very strongly, By Mr Beard: Saw nothing nor.' letected anything in the copper. In-' ttd thrwholo of the stablgß on ' he'first'vioit. ■ Was. snre the tubing ':' ?a? not there when the .first visit was uade to the place, ! When the Sor- '> [dant first paid a visit to the place ' HO -long aa they idid; not take the* :v oissus and child away.' 1 * ; / .• Constable Cooper corroliorated the; ••• .Sergeant Prio« Wid Con- -

sfcta Collorton, When witness was Cftrtying the boiler from the house, the liquid from the tap ran over liim smelling very strongly of spirits. By Mr Beard: The stuff smelt like spirits of some sort. There wan a great difforcnco in pigs wash and the stuff they (the police) found in the •barrels. s . :;: WillisrarSkey, Government Analyisi, on affirmation made the follow- • • .ing l report .on. the., samples of >the • sent by, the police;— l have the . honor to report upon the two 'samples of spirits 1 and 2) which were handed,"to me for examination'. One : .ol ; them, (No. 2). is a raw.spirit, very '• • hom the presence. of fusel oil ..in quantity; it is 85.8 per cent under .prodf, and is evidently the distillato <J direct from the wash. The other (No. ' 1) is a brown-colored spirit, also turbid and charged with fusel .oil. It is • 81 per cent under proof, 1 and • its color is duo to'the presence of caramel (burnt sugar). This sample • appears ,to have been obtained from' ; - the spirits represented by' No. 2 sample, and by a very imperfect rectification. I consider it to be of a very - poisonous nature, and only drinkable ■•' by persons of depraved taste. It. cannot well be confounded with any ■ Spirit that is imported here. Thomas Lavchin, brewery expert of the. Customs department, stated ' .that he had inspected the premises of the accused and also the articles found there. Oil visiting the place . of accused.he. found three V shaped troughs, which,-.on examination, lie found would fill in a slot of the weather boards, leading from the i .. boiler house. The only thing required a perfect stiil was'the still head. Mm- considered the tubing produced pWould answer the purpose of a worm, where there was plenty of room, The only thing missing was tho connection between the copper and the tubing. It was not a large article and could easily be put oilt of the way. By Mr Beard—Would say the boiler produced was specially constructed for distilling purposes. Had never seen coppers of the same shape and' characteristics as the one produced used for anything but distilling. The witness entered into a minute description of the maimer in which spirits are distilled, and the apparatus used for the purpose. Mr Beard contended that the evi- . &11C6 'Was not sufficient to warrant tt conviction, and asked the Court to strike out everything from the information except the apparatus, V The Court decided that the information would Tomain unaltered.. Jir Gully replied that it was not Msible to. produce a stronger case b|'inference, and,that the evidence £«ild'lead to no other conclusion but rihat the apparatus had been used for distilling. He drew attention to the fact that there were spirits in three different, stages of preparation. Mr Beard, on being, called on for his defence, asked the court for a remand, as his principal witness was absent, and it was necessary that he should be present, Mr Gully objected to the remand, on the ground that it would be' unfair to the prosecution to grant a remand after having heard their case, us it gave the. other sidean advantage over them, and would enable them to bring other evidence than they first intended. Mr Beard contended that as the prosecution had amended the information at the last moment, ho was quite justified in asking for a remand. He proposed to call expert'evidence and oxwriine the defendant in tlie case. po-Court remanded the case for a w§ek, bail boing [allowed as bofore. As _ there were two informations against aecused, it was decided that the evidence'of one should be taken aB for Jthe other, so that the time of the Court would not bo unnecessarily taken up.