R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2639, 5 July 1887, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDAY. (Before S. Von Stunner, R.M. and W. H.Beetham.J.Pi) The Alleged Private Still. John McDermott of. the Taueru was charged ori remand with having an un-. licensed still in his possession. Mr Gully appeared for the police and Mr Beard defended. , . Edward Howard; plumber;'sworn, stated that he had had considerable; experience in fitting up distilleries in

England, and,'-had|&eenjbqilers as used in those places. The boiler (produced) was nothing like those used in distiller-; ies,. Had often seen boilers, similar • to the oho produced hv common use among the p.epple of-Lancashire. It was, fike the; boilers used there, for ordinary domestic;'purposes.'. The piping produced was notbf the Slightest use for-a; worm, if not 'being' -large enough and as : at present not' at all suitable for condensing purposes. Even if the still-head was on it would be iU- '' terly useless. The. piping used on .ordinary occasions was tin- lined,,as .copper pipes turns the liquor black. The wash produced was of no use for making whisky "as it contained no clarifying principle. By Mr Gully: His knowledge was gained by following his trade as plumber, and working at distilleries aB such. The boiler produced could be utilised 'for making whisky, Gould not say whether the distilleries he worked at in England were licensed; or not. Did not think that a straight pipe could be utilised for condensing with such advantage as by a spiral pipe. He-arrived.;* at the conclusion •that the wash; could not have been made into whiskey by rubbing it on; his hand and smelling it, did not think that, he -could manufacture alcohol with the plant now produced. ... Thomas Bennett, builder of Carterton,, sworn stated -that he 'had seen from twelve to twenty stills at work' in New 'Zealand;' Could not say whether they were illicit stills or not. The boiler (produced) was not' as it should be for distilling purposes, it was made altogether |n the "wrong prinoi-. pie for making!whisky in payable quantities. The piping produced was quiteunsuitableforcondensingpurposes ■ it'was too. small, of the wrong metal, and in every way unfit, the wash in its present state, was quite unfit for whiskey making, it required ferment' ing. If .the tube was fixed, to the boiler, it would not allow the steam to escape and would burst the boiler. By Mr Gully: Had done a great many things during his twenty-one years in the colony,' Had been a builder," commission agent, undertaker and whiskey maker/' Had.carried, ori the whiskey making within a few miles of Masterton for about 18 months. Had a well 'appointed still and had itmadeto his-own order.. Could tell' liquor that had been once through the still.' Did notthink .the liquor produced up to'much. Did not think that if a proper still-head had been fixed to ■ the. boiler it would be of any...use "for distilling purposes.;,-,., ■ William- Gillespie,', 'of"Masterton, sworn, stated he had five years experience in adistillery in. England and two years at a brewery, The boiler produced, he did not think was at all suitable for distilling. The piping he ; considered too small, and the wash . he-'knew nothing about. Did not notice any running:., water near Mr McDermott's residence when he was : up there about two "years ago. •■ '■'.■'- This concluded the evidence. .-•

Mr (My.was about to address the Court when'Mr Beard pointed out that the practice, of the Court did not admit of Counsel addressing: the Befich only when introducing' their evidence. This .was upheld by 'the Bench'. and their Worships retired.'.to consider; their judgment, which was, that they) were of opinion that the;apparatus:;found on the premises were used for ing purposes, and sentence was' ! deferred till after the 'other case 'was heard. '. . Y' : \

The accused was then charged 4 with having eight gallons of. spirit in his possession, on which full duty had not been paid. " ''.;'. - Mr Gully contended that the onus of proof-must rest with the defendant, he had only to go "into the box and say where he purchased it, t. Mr Beard referred to the expert evidence on the other side. Mr Larchin -could not say if the spirit was duty paid or not. The Bench held that the; onus of proof fell upon the defendant, who was then put into the witness box. Examined by the Bench, stated that the whiskey produced came from his place. He obtained the whiskey by "bulling" the other barrels. l There was also some Dunville andLoViie Whiskey (bottled) put into /'the barrel. The barrels were enipty when he purchased them. Ito got some of them from the previous owner of the Taueru hotel, named Neilsen, and had them in his possession about three years. Thisconcluded the case. The accused., was convicted on both charges and fined £IOO, £SO on each, or in default twelve months imprisonment.