R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2811, 31 January 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

. MASTERTON.-MONDAY. (Before S. Von Stumer KM) Alleged Sly-Grog Selling. Sergeant Price v Elizabeth Eiddle, This was a second information accused being charged with selling liquor to John Mulligan, George Bennett, and Harry Hill. Mr Pownall appeared for accused. John Mulligan, described as a navvy living at the Taueru, recollected the morning of the 27th December/ His house stands opposite Mr Riddle's store. On that morning he saw Bennett stand-

ing outside Mr Riddle's store. He called witness over, and askedhim to have a " pitch afc.tlie mot" for drinks. They pitched with a half-crown. Mulligan won the toss, and they went into Mrs Riddle's and called for five whiskeys. Paid the half-crown to the waiter who gave it to Mrs Riddle, and she put it in the till. The drinks were brought out on a tray. The whiskey was in a bottle which was taken from under the counter. A short time after this Bennett and witness had another "pitch;." which the latter won. They then went in and paid for five more drinks. Mrs Riddle, disputed about the number of drinks sayinp. there were six drinks, but being Xmas time it lid not matter.' She then put the half-crown in the till the same as before. After witness had drunk his whiskey he left, and got his horse and wentaway to work. Bennett was not intoxicated at this time, if he had been he would not have been able to pitch at the "mot," By Mr Pownall: This took place between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning. ' There were several present at the time, and they all appeared to ie ■ sober. Did not know the name of the person who was employed as waiter' at Mrs Riddle's, but knew him by sight. Witness. very seldom frequented Rogers' hotel, and never spoke to Mr Rogers on this matter. To His Worship: Bennett pay the 2s 6d to Mrs Riddle, and she herself supplied the liquor. . N George Bennett could not very distinctly remember what did occur on or about that time. He had a faint recollection of" pitching at the mot," but did not remember paying for any drinks. Was not particularly drunk at the time, but was slightly delirious. By Mr Pownall: At this time he had money, but could not say how much. He merely- went to work for Mrs Riddle for a short time to try and recover from the effects of drink before going back to his situation at' Messrs Beetham's station. Harry Hill on being called, deposed that he saw Mulligan and Bennett " pitching at the mot," but could not say whether this was on the morning after Boxing Day or not. Could not say whether he did have a driuk with them. Knew the waiter at Riddle's but did not see any money paid to him by Mulligan for drinks, neither did he see any money pass between Bennett and Mrs Riddle; as a matter of fact he was so drunk that he could scarcely recollect what did take plase. James Henry Cooper, a resident"at Flat Point, remembered being at the Taueru on the morning of the 27th, and seeing Mulligau and'Bennett "pitchingat the mot." Never saw Mulligan in Riddle's store and most emphatically denied serving him with drinks or paying money to Mrs Riddle for any. Heard Mulligan and Bennett say they were pitching for drinks. By Mr Pownall: They first played "mot" in front of Mulligan's, and then came across and played in front of Riddle's. , If any person had gone into Riddle's for thinks he most certainly would have noticed it. Mulligan's statement re paying him for drinks was utterly false. To His Worship: Would swear most positively that he never gave any drink to anyone on that morning, and that he was also perfectly sober. This closed the case for the prosecution,

- Mr Pownall, for the defence, contended that the evidence, as in the previous case, had completely • broken down. Sergeant Price failed to see this was the case, as if Bennett and Hill were to be relied on in giving evidence, a lot more would yet come out over the matter. The prosecutor's principal witnesses were reliable, and had given their evidence in a very ward manner, _ His Worship thought the contradictions' came from the Sergeant's witnesses, and althought there might be strong suspicions, lie could do no other than dismiss the information. Sergeant Price v. Elizabeth Biddle, This was a third charge against the defendant for having supplied George Bennett with one bottle of whiskey and two bottles of stout on the 2Gth December.

George Bennett, on being sworn, stated he did not'remember being in Mulligan's house on the 26th December, nor yet taking lipor of any kind into the said house. Did not obtain money from Mulligan to get drink, He distinctly denied receiving 8s Gd to get brandy or two bottles of porter. Alfred Edward Lovejoy stated that on the 26th December he was at Mulligan's. Bennett, Hill, Mulligan, and a stranger were there at the time. Bennett went and got liquor for which he was paid 8s 6d- Bennett went across to Kiddle's and obtained a bottle of whiskey which he .brought into Mulligan's house. The bottle now produced in Court, to the best of his belief, was the same as brought from Mr Eiddlo's store. AH those who were in the house had a think, which was supplied by Mulligan. Witness then preferred to shout, and gave Bennett 8s 6d for that purpose. The latter went to Rogers' hotel and then across to Eiddle's. Would swear it was from tho latter place he brought the two bottles : of porter. Tho 8s 6d was given to fetch brandy, but Bennett said that as they had none he brought the porter instead, When, asked for the change Bennett said he had none. ByMrPownall: Witness took the whiskey down to Mr.Eogers and gave it to him. His reason for doing bq

was to put a stop to this .illegal biisi- • '■ ness; to cut a stop to the unfair practices of sly grog selling, seeing that a respectable person had to pay heavy expenses, and also a license to carry on business. By Serpfc Price: One reas/flfcthat prompted witness to lay the irflfinaationwas on account of the disgraceful exhibitions that had been carried on for a considerable time past' at Kiddle's, By His Worship: The bottle of whiskey and stout which he took to Mr Rogers, was never in anyone else's hands. Personally he never had more than two drinks. Mulligan may hare had two drinks but was 1 not intoxicated. . , ;s

,_, James Mulligan said his house was situated directly opposite Riddle's. He distinctly remembered the evening of the 26th December. He saw money paid to Bennett to go and fetch liquor, which was brought from Riddle's. Lovejoy grumbled at paying 8s Gd for two bottles of porter, thinking 2s Gd a bottle was quite enough. Bennett at this time was not suffering from delirium tremens. The porter had, the bull dog brand on. Lovejoy anUk witness were sober at the time. -' J* By Mr Pownall: The bottles were wrapped round with paper. The original bottle of. whiskey was taken down to Mr Rogers'by Mr Ljtojoy, and a bottle of Lome whiskey brought > back in its place, of which he had a drink.. At this time the liquor was drunk jn witness' Iritchen. When; Bennett went out for the liquor,' witness went into his own shop to serve some children with lollies, and whilst there , watched Bennett go ,and come out of Mrs Riddle's with the bottle of whiskey. He brought the latter into his premises through the: front door. On the second occasion, when sent for spirits, Bennett brought back porter. These were subsequently taken by Lovejoy to Mr Rogers of the Taueru Hotel.' A corkscrew was sent by Mrs Riddle with the two bottles of porter. Could not swear whether the two botties produced in the Court .are the same as . brought over from Mrs Riddle's. By Sergeant Price: Since the above Mrs Riddle came over to his house : and saw his subpoena, and said something about she was one of the crimi- < nal breed, and.she would make hiy"Ni head as small as apin. PresuJllshe meant she would make it warnr for him if he gave evidence against her. Bennett had a drink out]of the bottle of whiskey that was brought from the hotel. Charles Rogers, publican at the Taueru, stated he recollected Bennett coming in the hotel on the 26th December for a bottle of gin, but it was refused. The bottles produced never came from his hotel. Lovejoy brought the whiskey and two bottles of stout, which lie stated came from Riddle's. By Mr Pownall; Riddle keeps a large Boarding House at the Taueru, which was erected since the hotel was .- built. Lovejoy brought the whiskey first, and the stout afterwards.

a Several complaints had been made 6 about Eiddle supplying liquor. * To His Worship: Bennett was not so far gone that he could not be held f responsible for his actions, A bottle , of gin would have been ,gigm to Bennett, had it not been f| Mrs e Rogers, who hod been advised not to ' supply him with liquor. Sergeant Price gave evidence as to' jL- ; receiving the bottles produced hi' 1 .Court. * ■ i . 1 For the defence Mr Pownall called Harry Cooper, who said; I remember the night of Boxing Day. I was in , Riddle's house between the hours of j six and eight o'clock. Mrs Riddle 1 was in the store. I was downstairs 1 all the evening.' I saw Bennett in the ', passage. I did not see him come in . and stay twenty minutes. " To Sergfc. Price: lam a sober man. 1 Ido not think Bennett was bordering. t upon d.t's at the time. Mr Riddle L ' was absent from the Taueru on the [ 26th and 27th. ' [ To Mr Pownall: I called Mrs Riddle's attention to the fact that Bennett was in thepassage. She said "I wonder what he wants." It was ' between 6'and 7. :> ' Mrs Riddle, who was called'and 1 examined through the Bench, said: '".'.""" t I admit giving Bennet a gMp of | whiskey on the morning of tli?26th 1 December, but no liquor of any cles- ' cription was sold by me. I had a 1 bottle of old Irish whisky in the house ■ on that day, I neither sold nor gave. ; away stout on that day. ".&_.-■ Mr Pownall said he did not intend V calling further evidence, and this* therefore closed the defence. • He left 1 the matter in the hands of the Bench, I 1 In summing up, His Worship said the case was a clear one as to where the liquor came from, viz,, from Riddle's premises, but the testimony as to by which person the drink was supplied or as to-whether monej was paid for it was weak, and the case would therefore be dismissed. ' Illegal Grog Selling. Sergeant Price v Thomas Power.— In this case the defendant was charged with illegally selling liquor at Mauricevillo railway station on Saturday, 14th January, to R, H. ElliottoAmes Willis, aad Alfred Yile, he nofpying 'a license for such sale. SergeamVPrioe prosecuted and Mr Pownall appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty, ' R. H. Elliotte deposed that he wan at Mauriceville railway station on 14th January, having gone up there from v Masterton in the train, He saw Mr ?G James Willis, who was also a passenget in the train, and Mr Vile there. He chatted with them and they had a, drink together.. He-asked them to go with him into the Mauriceville railway refreshment room, and when there ho called for brandy and cloves, the others each having long beers, Mr Power drank with them. He paid Mr Power half-a-brown for the drinks, receiving sixpence change. He afterwards went back at the invitation of Mr Alfred Vile and had a drink with him, the latter paying. By Mr Pownall: There vftno ammus existing in this case between Mr Power and himself, although thero was a dispute about the hotel. This case was not the outcome of that disagreement. Hj« WorsWo ke poised, o^th^i

m any case the police had laid the information &nd not Mr Elliotte. _ James Willis, schoolmaster at Manricovillo deposed that he met Mr Elliotte at Masterton and conversed < with him there, but on coming to Mau,'Apiceville ho did not have a drink on "that occasion, nor had ho had one with Mr Elliotte siuce. In fact, he did not go into the refreshment room at all. As regards Mi- Vile, ho had never known him until this morning. Alfred Vile deposed that he was at the Mauriceville station on January 14th and saw Mr Elliotto there. They went into the refreshment room and had a drink, he forgot what it was, Mr Willis was not there; he had not seen him before to-day. Ho could not swear whether he had beer or not. He hardly knew the difference between ginger ale and beer. He shouted the first time and then Mr Elliotte. fie paid one shilling. Ho believed he had ginger alo, although he called for beer. Mr Power said ho had no beer and supplied ginger a!o, To his Worship; He did not know what Mr Elliott drank. Ho was :. quite SHi'o he had ginger ale, L\ Sergeant Price deposed that he was - Inspector under the Act. Mr Thos. Power had received a temporary transfer of tho license of the Mangamahoe Refreshment Rooms from 31st wgcembor, 1887, but he held no license for the Mauriceville Railway Station. Mr Pownall submitted that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case, and that Mr Elliotte's evidence was unsupported by the other witnesses' testimony,, ' He had no evidence to offer. Ho would, however, put the defendant in the box. Thes Power examined, on oath, by the Bench said: He would not have supplied Mr Elliotte on the day in question with a glass of brandy for £5 and he did not do it. He had not got it in the place. Mr Vilo asked for beer and he said he had aone. He gave him ginger ale. His Worship decided to hear the second information before deciding this case. Thos. Power was then charged with a sacond offence of the same nature, on the same date, at the same place, Thos. Bennett, E. H. Elliott, and Alfred Vile being the persons, alleged to t have been supplied with liquor. jgJhos. Bennett was called but did not i Wwcr. Sergeant Price asked for a remand on account of the absence of this witness, for whoso appearance he requested a warrant be issued. His Worship in reply to Mr Pownall, said he would not decide upon the previous case in the absence of the witness. Both cases would therefore bo adjourned until Monday next at 10 o'clock, and a warrant would be issued as desired. The case was then remanded as above. Civil Cases, H, Owen v. Harcourt & Co.—Claim £7 for wages and £3O compensation for loss of employment. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant, Judgment for plaintiff was given for £7 paid into Court, with Court costs and Counsel's fee 21s, E. R. Shafto v Eanganui ICingi, cliffljjkfor £'l 83, money advanced on 26™ December. The defendant did not appear, Mr Skipper for the • plaintiff, P E. R, Shafto in reply to His Worship said he had never asked the defendant for the money. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, and for cost of solicitor, witness, and subpoena. The Court costs would not be allowed, as no application had been made for payment by plaintiff. The case of Wbitt v Hogg, Wickerson v Brown, and Bartlett v Parker were remanded until next Monday morning, and Toob ill v Chapman until Wednesday. John Hunt v Henry Burling, claim £2O value of a cattle dog killed by the defendant, Mr Pownall for plaintiff, and Mr Beard for defendant, John Hunt, contractor, deposed that he wont to thedefendant's house Tiraumca, on 7th January to get some meat. His dog went a-head, Miss Burling flung a brick at the dog. It was also worried by the defendant's Mr Burling kicked it. Burlthreatened to hit him, and did so—on the nose, His Worship—The case is not one of assault. That mattor, therefore, need not be detailed, r Witness, continued: I hit him back, defendant retaliated, and then went into his house. He, witness, went to the woolshed, and while there noticed Burling come running out with a single barrelled gun, and, thinking he was going to shoot him, ran away, He then heard a report, returned, and saw that hi 3 dog had been shot, To Mr Pownall: The dog was quiet, Mr Burling was in a rage, and the only reason he gave for shooting the dog was that it had been fighting his dogs. To Mr Beard; There had been no previous complaints from Mr Burling about the dog. It was a pig-catching dog, and not a sheepdog, in fact, it would run away from a sheep, He wouijLsooner have £25 than the clog, (latfflter.) So, he meant he would rather have the dog than £25, He gave £3 for [he dog, and had had it twolvo months, Mr Caruell had offered him £lO for the dog; someone else had offered him £ls. To Mr Pownall: He had no oppor--4 tunityof registering the dog, as he fF ' lived far back. Mr Beard here said that the shooting of the dog was admitted, but that the act in the instance of an unregistered dog such as the plaintiff's was quite legal, it being on the laud of Mr Burling. He quoted sections 13 and 16 of the Dogs Registration Act. Mr Pownall submitted that the sections did not apply, as the plaintiff was in charge of the dog at the time. His Worship said the plaintiff had no right to have an unregistered dog, The Act was very clear and allows the destngition of the dog by the man on wh'ewand it is found. He could not, perhaps, endorse, the act of killing the dog in such a hasty manner, but at the same time plaintiff had no legal claim, The plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited., and pay defender's solicitor's fee 2k

" EOUQH ON CATARRH, corrects offensive adors at once. Complete cure of worst chronic case; also unequalled as gargle for diphtheria, soro throac, foul breath "Rough on Pjles," Why suffor Piles? Immediate relief and complete cure guaranteed. Ask for " Bough on Piles." Sure euro for itching, protruding, bleeding, or any form of Piles. Wo strongly advise any one requiring real value for their money to purchase their clothing at The Wairarapa Jlothing Factory, They keep none but genuine N. Z. tweeds iti stock and their N. Z. tweed Suits made to measure are guaranteed unequallod in the colony for lit, style, workmanship, and prico, One trial will convince those who may doubt what we aay—note address, The Wairarapa Clothing Factory next Mason's chemist, E. B! Hare Manager advt.