Breaches of Borough Bye-laws.

Waikato Times, Volume XV, Issue 1255, 15 July 1880, Page 2

Breaches of Borough Bye-laws.

Clement Harris was charged with a breach of No. 3 of the Borough bye-laws by driving a vehicle through the streets of the borough without being provided with lamps on Sunday last. Sergeant McGovern explained the circumstances of the case. The defendant was cautioned not to infringe the bye-laws in future. Joseph Williams was charged with being the owner of an unregistered dog. The defendant did not appear. The evidence of Constable Foreman was taken, and defendant fined 10s and costs.

Sly Grog Selling. Bernard Coleman was charged with selling liquor on the 7th July and other days without a license, contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Act. Mr O'Neill appeared for the defence, and took a preliininaiy objection to the information, which disclosed more than one offence. Sergeant McGovern said the police were not in a position to fix any day. After some further argument, His Worship said he would take a note of the objection, and amend the information if necessary. Sergeant McGovern, in opening the case, said, — May it please your Worship : The circumstances of the case are these : — The defendant is a contractor, and employs some 30 men on a portion of the new railway line running through the Piako Swamp, some 10 miles distant from Hamilton, and, I believe, about the sama distanco from Morrinsville. Latterly the police noticed from time to time men coming in from Piako Swamp that had all the appearance of having been drinking. This was more particularly noticed last week, when one young man came in almost frantic, and on the following day another man c.ime in with black eyes and seemed as it' he had been drinking for a week. The police made enquiries, and the result of those enquiries has led to the present prosecution. With these few remarks I shall now proceed to call a few witnesses. Henry Charles Hill, a labourer, sworn, said he knew the defendant for whom lie was working hi the Piako. He went on on the 2nd July, and knocked off on the 7th July. The defendant told him there was liquor in the camp if he wished to have any. Witness had something to drink on the morning of the 7th, between 8 and 9 o'clock. Mr Coleman supplied him with rum. Witness had two, and defendant had two. Defendant had not settled up with him when they had the first drink, but he told witness what was coming to him while they were drinking the second. Defendant deducted 2/- off his account for the liquorsi Witness grumbled and defendant then told him that he had permission to sell liquor and must charge for it. On the same day he saw other men with drink. He supposed they got it at the camp they did not get it in Hamilton, that he knew. He saw a man named Patrick Collins with a bottle of drink. There were four or five of the men drunk on the morning he left. The rum was not so good as one gets in a public house. The reason he left was on account of the grub, the cook being drunk. He saw a quantity of liquor at the camp. He got his drink out of a case of rum. There was a man named Reynolds there, who also had had a drop of drink. The drink was all kept in Mr. Coleman's tent. Cross-examined. — I was not discharged because I was no good. It was because I made a remark about the grub. I told i the defendant when I left that I would see that I got the money all right when I got to Hamilton, and not have money taken off for every little thing. I worked three days and a quarter. McLeod was present when I said I would see about it. About two miles down the line I again told him I would see and get my money right. Defendant shouted the first drink, and charged me afterwards with it. Re-examined — Defendant charged me a shilling for the loan of a barrow, and another for a spade, and it ■was these sums I referred to when I spoke to him,

Patrick Collins was called bnt he W»b so pafpably under the influence of liquor that the Magis l rate tuggested a few hours in the lock-up as necessary before taking his evidence. Sergeant McGrovern said the witness had been cautioned nob to iake any drink. He would call the other witnesses, and then ask for an adjournment till the witness became moz r e sober. The witness was then removed. William Reynolds, a laborer sworn, said lie know the defendant. He was employed by him on the railway works in the swamp. He was there from the sth of March till the Bth inst. He knew the witness Hill, who was working with him. He considered that Hill worked as well as any body else. He remembered when Hill was discharged, which was owing to a disturbance about the breakfast. There was some drink around that morning, of which witness partook. He had rum, more than four glasses. It was not bad rum ; it buited him very well workiug in the swamp. He was n'tt charged for this rum, on this or any other occasion. He had some from Collins, who got it from Mr Colemaa. Witness kept Collins's time, he not being much of a scholar. Wituess had an opportunity &{ seemg 1 Mr C'oleman's time-book, in which he saw a deduction made from Collins's account for a bottle of rum. Mr O'Neill objected, as the book was not in evidence. The defence should have been notified of it. Examination continued : Witness knew of his own knowledge that Collins paid 7s for the bottle of rum. There were several men drunk or partially so on the 7th inst. There was liquor in the camp on that day, and any person wanting liquor could be supplied. Cross examined : There was a scarcity of provisions on the 6th, and the men were short. The defendant went into Hamilton on that day. I do not know why the liquor was given to me. No men to my knowledge were sent to Hamilton for grog To the Bench : I nevar heard Coleman say he had permission to sell liquor. The liquor given to Collins was charged against him. William McLeod, foreman in the employment of Mr Coleman for the last four or five years, deposed that he was at work at Piako. He knew Hill, whom he discharged because he growled about his tucker and was not able to wcrk. He was discharged on the 7th, and witness was present when Mr Coleman settled up with him. There was some drink about, but he did not see Hill get any. Witness got two bottles of rum and a bottle of brandy on that day. The rum cost 6s and the brandy 7s. He paid Mr Coleman when they were settling up. The defendant did not keep a supply, bxit simply brought it out when required. Collins got two bottles from witness. He did not charge bim, but would not swear that Mr Coleman did not charge him. Cross-examined: Hill was no good, and I only kept him on at the request of Mr Coleman to give him a chance. I told Mr Coleman to bring some groer out for me when he went in on the 6th. I believe that Collins also did the same. The defendant did not keep liquor in the camp. Re-examined : I saw no cases of liquor at the camp on the 7th. I saw none, but there might have been. Patrick Collins : I r.now Mr Barnard Coleman. I was working since the 19th March last on the Piako swamp for him. I saw Hill working on the place with me a few days. He worked a3 well as any other man. I dont know why he was discharged. I left Coleman to go to another job. He settled up with me. I had £1 coming to me. McLeod gave me a bottle of rum on the 7th inst., for which I paid 6s. Knew Reynold*, he did not keep my time, except on one occasion. Had no other drink on that day except the one bottle of rum. There was other drink in the camp on the 7th. My account for drink was taken off at time of final settlement. I don't know if other men were drunk. I saw none tipsy but myself. I had a black eye on coming to Hamilton on Thursday, from the camp. Cross examined by Mr O'Neill : The rum I obtained was ordered from Hamilton. Defendant never sold grog in the camp to my knowledge. To the Bench : I got but one bottl-3 in the camp on the 7th inst. Thomas Dawson.hotelkeeper, Hamilton, I know the defendant, he bought liqunr from ms on the 24th June, 6 bottles brandy, 6 battles rum ; for rum I charge 1 him os per bottle. B. Coleman (the defendant) stated on Tuesday, 6th July, provisions run out at the camp. I left for HimiKon same day. I told McLeod and Collins I was going to get provisions, McLeod asked me to bring him two bottles rum and oue bottle brandy. Collins asked for one bottle rum. I leffc Hamilton for the camp about 10 o'clock. I took with me three bottles of rum and three bottles of brandy, and reached the camp about -i a.ia. ; gave the cook a drink of brandy about three glasses, McLeod took his rum and brandy, and gave Collins h's of ruin the balance of the drink I gave to the men during the day. McLeod asked me to pay Hill off as lie had discharged him trom his gang. Hill came to my tent and I settled up his account. He worked 3jf days at 7/- per day. There were charges against him 14'- odd for board, smaller sums for tobacco and matches, 1/2 for use of spade, and 3'- odd I paid him in cash. I deny that Hill had any drink from me, either for payment, or anything else. There were not two cases of spirits in the whole camp. I never kept spirits iv my camp for sale. The spirits I got in the camp were the same I got from Captain Dawson. None of the drink I took to the camp has yet been charged for. I could not charge for it not being certain of the prices. Wood, of Piako, charges 7/- per bottle for drink, and I charge the man only 6/-. (To the Bench) I gave Reynolds brandy on the 7th inst. Collins is not yet out of my employment. It has not been my custom to get drink iv large quantities and send out to the camp. McLeods evidence I think is slightly wrong. The men on on the 7th inst. were tipsy, on that day I paid oft' 3 men. The Bench ruled the case proved. Fined £25 and costs £4 of-