R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2816, 6 February 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-MONDAY.

(Before S. Von Sturmeu R.M)

Drank, A first offender was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 4th instant, and, pleading guilty, was discharged with, a caution, his Worship considering that the incarceration since the offence, had been sufficient punishment. Illegal Grog Selling.

Sergeant Price v Thomas Power.— In this case the defendant was charged with illegally selling liquor at Mauriceville railway station on Saturday, 14th January, to Thomas Bennett, E, H. Elliotte, and Alfred Vile, he not having a license for the same. Sergeant Price prosecuted and Mr Pownall appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Thos Bennett deposed: I am a builder residing "at Carterton, I was at Maurieeville on, I think, 14th of last month. I cannot fix the date positively, I came from Woodville on that day. It was the 14th—a Saturday, I met Mr Elliotte, and two or three who came down in the same train. I saw Mr Vile, he, and two or three others including Mr Elliotte, went with me into the Refreshment' Room. I paid for two or three drinks. I asked for and had ginger wine. I don't know what the others had, I seldom drink brandy, but 1 know the difference between it and ginger wine; I don't know whether the others drank out of the same bottle or not. Mr Elliotte said thattherewas nothing stronger than ginger wine at the rooms so I went in and had some. It was given out of a ginger wine bottle, and I supposed it was ginger wine. I will not swear it was not brandy. By Mr Pownall: I generally drink stout, and have never drunk much ginger wine or much brandy. Prom my experience I should say what I drank was ginger wine. By Sergeant Price: I would rather say it was ginger-wino than gingerbrandy, as the former was what I asked for. Until Mr Elliotte said there was nothing but ginger-wine, I was unaware the rooms had no license.

By His Worship : lam quite sure Mr Elliotte said there was nothing but ginger-wine. Ido not think Mr Vile heard the remark. I had nothing at all on the journey up, as then I did not know there was anything at all in the place. I paid Mr Power for the driuks.

Alfred Vile deposed: lam a resident of Mauriceville, and saw Mr Bennett at tho Mauriceville Railway Station on the 14th January. I saw Mr Elliotte thero, too. We all went into the Refreshment Room, and Mr Bennett" shouted.'' I had gingerale. I will swear to that. It was not beer. I have uot had any beer at that station since Mr EUiotte's time. I asked for beer, but Mr Power said he had none, and supplied ginger-ale. I don't know what the others drank.

By Mr Pownall: The train stopped about five minutes. There was no crowd in the room.

By His Worship: I know the difference between ginger-ale and beer, and am quite satisfied I had the former. R. H. BUiotte deposed; I reside at Masterton, I was at Mauriceville station on the day in question and saw Mr Bennett there. Ho asked me and Mr Vile to go and have a drink. Mr Bennett called for brandy, Mr Vile for beer, and I for brandy and cloves. Mr Vile termed his a " medium" beer, Mr Power poured my brandy and Mr Bennett's out of the same bottle. I drank mine neat; Mr Bennett toned his down with - water. Bennett paid for the drinks. I could not make a mistake between ginger wine and brandy, Water is not taken with ginger vine, and Mr Bennett took water with his brandy. Mr Bennett drank out of the same bottle with me, and miue was brandy. By Mr Pownall: Mr Bennett gavo the invitation. I did not say that we could only get ginger wino. I have no private motive whatever in the case. I have never made any offer to settle this affair, It was not my case, and I had no power to do so,

Mr Pownall here asked the Court to caution MrEUiotte, as he had two special questions to ask.

By Mr Pownall: I have no private' motive whatever in this case, but I haveinanother case between Mr Power and myself; in the latter I certainly have tried to make an amicable settlement, but not in this instance, Mr Pownall produced a letter which Mr Elliotte admitted m m his hand-

writing. It was read to the Court by . the latter, and ran as follows: ."Memo. Writ—Breach of contract, LIOO, First conviction L 10; also prevents anyone holding a license for 5 years. Second conviction LIOO or, , imprisonment. These facts must be

met and not overlooked. ILan ar- . rangement can be made Isß quite willing, but it must be done at once, before'to-morrow night, otherwise it | will be out of my power. Will give L 25, and stock at valuation on Power

giving meback possession. Another fact remains to be considered viz ; The license can only remain in force to Brd March, Bjfld then must cease. Power has not any lien." E. H. Elliotte continued. To Mr Pownall: This letter referred to private business between Mr Power j and myself, as regards the room, and, ' wasnotintendedasa threat in tlie-

present case. My object was only to ' settle affairs as regards the room, before the writ was issued in the present prosecution. The memo, at the top, regarding the penalties of LlO and LIOO had nothing to dojott| the writing below it. It was HJHH put there as a private note, I ben%™

short of paper, and not having a separate piece. . By Sergeant Price: Mr Moore, clerk of the licensing bench, gave meV Alf. Vile, recalled, -at By His Worship : Mr BgHetfc and- •. Mr jSlliotte did not oonverse together

before going into the Refreshment,; "••" Boom on the day of the occurrence. Mr Pownall, for the defence, called Thomas Parsons, who deposed: I am a brewer, and live in Masterton. Mr Elliotte .talked with me about the Booms and handed me the memorandum now before the Court. He

wrote it shortly before giving it to me.' I I was to be mediator in the dispute between Mr Elliotte and Mr Power. Mr Elliotte said that if Mr Power was V convicted, he would have to sell out; of the place, and he wrote down orik the paper produced the result of at conviction, and told me to use it as an

influence to get Power to accept, the offer made by him. At the time this took place, I did not know whether the present informations were laid or

not.—the thing was generally taßjgd ,- about, and that was'all, Nothing wa? said about the present illegal grogselling cases between Mr Elliotte and myself beyond what I haveJfcjptioned; ■- Mr Pownall said the on'™evidence '■■ favorable to the prosecution was Mr Elliotte's, and that had been contra-; dieted. He considered no case had; been proved, and would ask that the' informations be dismissed. ! His Worship, in' giving judgment,, \ said in this and in the" first case in ] which Mr Power was charged under I similar circumstances with supplying , liquor to R. H. Elliotte, James Wiijis, ! and Alfred Vile, and the evidence in which was taken last Monday, the testimony are very contradictory and so-. conflicting as to almost indicate perjury in some instances. The evidence of Mr Elliotte, who was the principal witness for the. prosecution had been much shaken by that of other witnesses, and where the testimony threw so much doubt, the defendant had to have the benefit of it. He would therefore dismiss both informations, No expenses would be allowed th<] defendant. mt A ..