R.M. COURT. TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2319, 21 May 1887, Page 2

R.M. COURT. TE AWAMUTU.

Thursday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R. >1., and Mr J. H. Mandeno, and J. Hutchinson J. P.) BUKACHES OK THii LICJKNSINtt ACT. Henry Tanner was charged on the information of Constable Andrew Berriman, that he did at Kuiti, ou the 4th February 18S7 sell intoxicating liquors to the said Andrew Berriman. He was further charged with the same offence on the same date at Otorohanga, and also on the 12th February at Otorohaugu, the said Henry Tanner not being duly licensed. Mr W. M. Hay appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. Inspector Kiely conducted the prosecution, and in opening the case said that having heard that intoxicating liquors were being sold in the country, where the railway works are going on," he directed Constable Andrew Berriman iu the month of January this year, to purchase samples for purposes of analysis, which the constable did, with th». result that this prosecution was instituted. Constable Andrew Berriman, sworn, deposed that he was stationed at Kuiti since 10th December IBSG. He visited Otorohanga on the 4th February, and saw men drunk there. They said they drank hop beer. Mr Hay here objected to the statement of those men, as it was hearsay, and as none of those men were present he could not examine them, and it was prejudicial to his clients. The Court ruled the evidence was admissable, and that it would not be prejudicial to Mr Hay's clients. Mr Hay accepted his Worship's assurance. Witness deposed to having purchased three pints of hop beer from Mr Tanner, two of which lie handed to Mr Pond on the 4th March for analysis. (Bottles produced, with Mr Pond's seal). Cross-examined by Mr Hay : Was sent to Kuiti on 10th last December. Believe they were selling hop beer then. Had a drink or two now and then. Could put a pint out of sight now and then. Considered it too bitter and nauseous to drink. Found out it was intoxicating in December. Only knew of hop beer being sold. Saw no whisky cases. Saw a few empty bottles sometimes. Knew nothing of the making of hop beer. Mr Innes forced him to take three or four bottles of beer once at Kuiti. It was drunk by Mr Land and Constable Hopone. Could not remember whether it was before or after laying this information. Got a conviction once for selliug spirits iu his subdistrict. Got no personal advantage by that conviction. The Court objected to this line of examination. Mr Hay said he was entitled to try and throw doubt on- the witness's evidence. It might be that the beer left by Mr Innes was not hop beer, and that the constable may have mixed it with the hop beer to try and get a conviction. Mr Hay repeated the question. Witness said it was his business if the Government rewarded him for his energy, and not Mr Hay's. Mr Tanner sold the beer openly, and knowing that witness was a constable. Did not seal the beer in the presence of Tanner ou this occasion. Did not give Mr Tanner a bottle sealed, and tell him what witness was going to do with it. Told Mr Tanuer the liquor was intoxicating before and after he bought it. Often told him the beer was intoxicating. Tanner said he bought it for hop beer, and if it was intoxicating he could not help it. Tanner must have known the liquor was intoxicating. To the best of his belief, he did know the liquor was intoxicating. His belief was grounded on occular demonstration. Was prepared to swear what the men got drunk on. Could not swear they did not get spirits. Saw twenty men drunk one night on hop beer. Could not swear one of those men did not get spirits. They might or might not have got spirits. They did not get drunk on hop beer though. By Mr Kiely : The hop beer had an intoxicatiug effect ou witness. It was part of the sample he bought from Mr Tanuer. By Mr Hay: Believed Mr Tanner stopped taking the beer after hearing the analysis. To the court: Since taking the samples there was a marked reduction iu drunkenness in that district. James Alexander Pond, sworn, deposed he was Colonial Analyst (Gazette put in). Know last witness. Received from him on 4th March some samples of liquor said to be hop beer. Recognised sample produced. The contents were a fermented saccharine fluid, flavoured with a bitter. There was also present in one or two samples a little salt, and a little sulphuric acid. Was instructed to look only for alcohol. Found 11.64 per cent, of proof spirit, equal to 6.63 per cent, of absolute alcohol by measure. That alcohol could not have been p red need by hops alone. Colonial beers would range from 11 to 13 per cent, of proof spirit. As an analyst, he would say that with 11 per cent, of alcohol it was as much intoxicating as an ordinary beer. The bottles were sealed when he got them from Constable Berriman. The bottles were not tampered with since they left witness's hands. Witness then gave a synopsis of his examination. Cross-examined by Mr Hay : Could not say there was any malt in this liquor, hop beer is generally made from sugar and yeast, flavoured with hops and sometimes with quassia. Iu all these beverages there is generally alcohol, to make them exhilarating. If there were no alcohol the liquor would be too insipid to drink. Even in ginger beer there is alcohol, as also in ginger wine and ginger brandy. Fermentation would not go on to any extent after fining and bottling. Fermentation would go on again when the bottle was opened, but under this second process the alcohol would be materially lessened. Re-examination. If ordinary beer had been mixed with it by the constable it would have reduced the quantity of alcohol. Brandy would have raised it, hut beer would have lowered it as the bop beer was of the same alcoholic value as ordinary beer. To the Court :—Was of opinion that this liquor came in the category of intoxicants described in the Act, (read by the court.) This closed the case for the prosecution.

As all the cases were similar it was agreed by counsel that the same evidence for the prosecution should stand for the whole of the cases. John Davis, John Hetit, George Neaves, and James Farrell were similarly charged, Mr Hay appearing for all defendants, who pleaded " not guilty." For the defence, Henry Canning Tanner deposed that he kept a boarding-house at Otorohanga. Was in the habit of selling hop beer there. Bought it of Mr Innes of Te Awamutu, Did not know when ho sold it that it was intoxicating drink. Drunk a good deal of it himself. Had no effect save to quench the thirst. About a fortuight ago Constable Berrimau told him he was selling intoxicatiug drink ; that was when he came with the summons. He did not say so before. Said once that there must be spirit in it as it made the men drunk. Witness replied that he did not know what wa3 in it. Knew it had do effect 011 him. By Inspector Kiely: Remembered Constables Bcrriman and Hopone coining into his place and on 4th February and buying some beer. Could not say from memory that he had had any drinks from the cask the sample was taken from. Saw no spirits, ale or porter, sold up there. Had seen men drunk during the summer. By Mr Hay : Got all his beer from Mr Inncs. Never ordered any other but hop beer. Did not know it was intoxicating, till told so by Constable Berriman. Charles Innes, brewer, of Te Awamutu, deposed that he made hop beer for sale in the King country, ; It was made of hops, sugar, and a little yeast. Put no malt in it. Did not. think anyone could tell there was spirit in it by simply looking at it or tasting it. An analytical

chemist of course could. Put no spirit in ; it would not pay hiiri to do so. , By Mr Kiely : Put nothing else in than . what was mentioned except sugar colouring. On one occasion when he was short ol colouring he put in three or four . bottles_ of stout in about 400 gallons to colour it. Could not remember whether ) he sent beer to Mr Tanner about the 2nd I February. If the beer sold by him was . equal to colonial or English beer it could , not have been his (witness'f) beer. ! By Mr Hay : The ingredients to r ginger beer and hop beer are the same except that in the former there are no hops, but the working is the same. To the court: The difference in price of hop beer and ordinary beer was six pence per gallon. None of his ordinary : beer was sent out by mistake. 1 Samuel Short, miller, of Te Awamutu, > deposed that lie had tasted soimMif the L beer sold pr Innes' hop beer, jlad no 1 effect on liiin as an intoxicant in any 1 sense whatever. Would not coinsider it 1 au intoxicating liquor. Did not drink 5 more than a pint of it. By Mr Kiely : Drank it in April, in the ! early part. Drank none in February as ' well as he could remember. > By Mr Hay : Drank one pint at Otoro* hanga, another at Mr Farrell's store at Hangatiki, and one more at Kuiti; altogether about six pints. 6 The next case was that against John i Davis. Mr Hay called j Mr S. Bond, proprietor of the store of which Mr Davis had charge. Witness deposed that he sold hop beer since 11th 3 December. Did not know the beer was " intoxicating. Bought it from Mr Innes. Drank it in other places than the King " country. Bought it in unlicensed places in Auckland. The latter was much the I same in taste and colour as that he bought ' from Innes. 1 Cross-examined by Mr Kiely : The beer 3 lie bought from Mr Innes was brewed both at Te Awamutu and Te Kuiti. Did not notice any difference in the strength 3 of the beer during the months of Feb--1 ruary, March or April. Saw men drunk, but not on hop beer. Saw whisky brought in bottles to Hangatiki, It was pro* * cured not 500 yards from witness's store. 1 It was sold there frequently, not by any j business people. It was sold as late as ' March. 1 John Charles Davis deposed that he ! was in charge of Mr S. Bond's store at [ Hangatiki. Sold hop beer and ginger , ale. Got several casks of hop beer in February from Mr Innes. Always drank r some from each cask that was tapped. Never had auy effcct on him whatever. Frequently saw the boys who drove carts ' there drink six or seven pints without it affecting them in any way. Saw a Maori named Te Oeo drink twenty-five pints of the hop beer without it making him 1 drunk. Cross-examined by Mr Kiely : Rememr bered Constable Berriman buying some 3 beer from him. Drank some from the 3 same cask, but it had no effect on him. r A few days after he was in Kikikihi and drank a pint of ordinary beer, which had 3 a decided effect on him, which the hop ' beer had not. Even oue glass of beer 3 affected him usually. 5 A young man named Petty was the L * next witness called, but before giving evidence he wanted to know who would " guarantee his expenses. ! Mr Hay :" Do you refuse to give evi--3 donee without a guarantee ?" 1 Witness : "Yes." ' Mr Hay : "Then Ido not want you, so you may go " » This caused considerable amusement. 3 John Hetit next gave evidence. It was ' practically the same as the other defen--3 dauts' viz., that he did not know it was * intoxicating. * Before proceeding with the remaining case. Mr Hay addressed the court. He contended that the intention constituted * the offence. No intention to commit a 3 breach of the law was proved against any 1 of his clients. He interpreted the 179 th ■_ section of the Act, under which the infor--1 motion was laid, to mean that the person to be guilty should knowingly have com* 1 initted the offence. He quoted Maxwell, IS7<3 edition, and " Paley on summary convictions " in support of his argument. He also quoted from Watkins and O'Connor, page 71, re a valueless cheque which had been picked up and presented by a man, who was acquitted, as no inten--1 tiou to defraud was proved. Another case in Duuedin was quoted, Hall (appellant), v. Quinn (respondent), in which case the decision of the Magistrate was reversed * by Judge Chapman, on the ground that ! there was no evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant. Also fsoni the Law Journal, Regiua v. Garter ■ and Stone, in which case the guilty in--1 tention was not proved. These were 1 analogous cases, and he therefore con--1 tended that his clients were not quilty of any offence. A similar charge was theu brought against James Farrell. James Farrell deposed that when Con--1 stable Berriman called at his store he bought four pints of hop beer, one of which he put into a bottle. He did not tell defendant what he wanted the liquor for, nor did he say that it was intoxicat--1 ing. Berriman never at any time told him that he was selling intoxicating drink. Previous to this, witness heard of men being drunk, but on making enquiries he found that they got whisky to driuk. He went to Mr Innes, and asked him what he made the beer of. He asked him if he put any malt in it. He did this to make sure that no blame could be put upon the hop beer for the drunkenness. Mr Innes said he put nothing but hops and sugar, and that it was not an intoxicating drink. Oue pint of ordinary beer, if taken on au empty stomach, waß sufficient to make witness tipsy. On the occasion of the constable buying the beer, witness drank a glass of it before dinner, and he also drank more with his lunch— altogether three or four glasses—and they had not the slightest effect on him. This closed the cases. The court was adjourned for consideration by the bench, and on resuming Mr Northcroft said the court had come to the decision that the defendants were guilty under the Licensing Act. They must have known that the liquor was intoxicating to those who drank it, but as they were not warned against selling any more after the result of the aualysis was known to the police, the bench came to the conclusion that a small fine would be sufficient. They would fine Tanuer £3, and £1 Is 4d costs, on each of the three cases, iu all £12 4s. The others would be fined £3, and £1 Is 4d costs each. Mr Kiely stated that on receipt of the analysis, which was not till 30th April, he issued instructions to the constable to warn defendants ageinst selling any more hop beer. During his cross-examination by Mr Hay, Mr Pond said that hops had no narcotic effcct, and that it was the alcohol iu the liquor that had the narcotic or intoxicating effect on those who drank it. He said that the bitter | priuciple in hops would, if taken in sufficient quantity to act as a narcotic, prove fatal. He said in reply to Mr Hay that a hop pillow would not induce sleep in a sick person. If the hops were damped they had a soothing cffcet iu cases of neuralgia, but the idea that a hop pillow would produce sleep was exploded.