SLY-GROG CHARGES

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19899, 30 May 1936, Page 4

SLY-GROG CHARGES

KING COUNTRY CASE. STOREKEEPER ACQUITTED. 1 SALE OF LIQUOR UNPROVED. A verdict of not guilty was returned after a short retirement in the case in which Hannah Joseph Habib, aged 50, Storekeeper, of Oruanui, appeared on two charges of selling liquor willi—out a. license in the Supreme Court at Hamilton yesterday. Mr Justice Falr presided, Mr H. T. Gillies prosecuted and the accused was represented by Mr E. Roe, of Rotorua. It was alleged by the Crown that on two occasions Habib had sold beer and spirits to a public works employee. Frank James Haycock. “Not 1: Drunken Brawl." Cross-examined by Mr Ro‘e. Frank James Haycock denied that. he had been involved in a “drunk—en brawl " prior to the fight with Boyd. when he stated he had been perfectly sober. He did not know that it was notorious that Boyd made a habit of dropping considerable quantities of liquor in the Oruanui and Mokai districts, and he had given Boyd no provocation for the assault. Mr Roe: You have stated that on the ilrst evening you paid for two bottles of liquor, and yet on the following morning you say you sent down a further ‘26 6d to lift them. Why‘i—Because I have been beaten there for beer before. Is it a fact that you owe liabi-b for provisions‘Z—No. Did you tell the police on April 23 that the liquor had been purchased at Wairakei‘l—No. Although when i went with the police constable from Oronui he visited the hotel. Witness said he had taken no liquor until, upon receiving his cheque, he had visited liablb‘s store. He denied that the trouble in his past life had been caused through over—indulgence. Mr Roe: At which interview was it that you asked Habil to let you have £5 ?-—l\'one at all. Was any sum of money mentioned? -——-No. Fight Outside store. \Vitness stated that he had taken empty bottles for several residents to Hablb's stores. A 20—year—old labourer of Oruanui. Robert )chnchlnn, said that he was present at the light which had ‘occurred between Boyd and liaycock, ‘who was a “bit drunk." Boyd had ‘given his opponent at hiding and wit—tness took i-iaycoch into a bathroom ‘at the rear of I-iabib‘s store and bathed ‘his injuries. 0n the same evening. iwhen chasing horses, he heard Haycock speaking in ilabib's store and ‘went inside, where he was invited to thave a drink, and was given a bottle ‘0!” stout to take home by llavcock. To Mr Roc witness said he was not aware of Boyd‘s selling liquor. A commercial traveller, Charles Mc‘Lean, said that between January 3 and ‘April 27 his Ill‘l'il had supplied the iaccused with 25 cases of ale and stout. each containing five and a half ‘dozen bottles, together with a small iquantity of spirits. lie could not say ‘whether a proportion of the liquor supplied to l'labib had been obtained iby other residents of tho district 1 through him. y A carrier of Taupo, Stan Chase, iproduced details of the freights of liquor which he had carried to Oruanui for the accused. and said that he ‘ had returned empty bottles to Napier Since the police rard on April 23 he had continued to carry a small quan- . tity of liquor for the accused. Constable M. McNulty stated that on April 23 he visited Oruanui, where at 11 am Haycock was intoxicated at the rear of Habib‘s store. \Vitness told the accused that he had reason to believe he was selling liquor, and pro—nounced his intention to search the premises. In a storeroom witness discovered 51: bottles of stout and ale, and 174 empty bottles in another por—tion or the building. Accused ex—plained that the liquor was for his own use and that the empty bottles had been purchased from neighbour—‘ing residents. In a cupboard of ‘Hahib's sitting—room there were two brandy bottles, one of which was full. Liquor Not Concealed. , Witness said he had never seen Habib under the influence of liquor, and in answer to Mr Roe stated that the liquor was not in any way con—cealed. His inquiries had shown that there was more liquor going into the store than into an average hotel, Mr Hoe submitted that the whole question was whether the accused had made an actual sale of the liquor. The Crown had pinned its case on the evidence of one witness, so far as allegations of a transaction were con~ i corned, and counsel contended that the , supplies oi! liquor in the store, Whichi was in an isolated area. could not be i regarded as unreasonable. Counsel described the evidence of the witness liaycock as being singu—larly unreliable, but it was on his statements entirely that Habib was being tried. The witness McLachlan‘ had seen no money pass, and Hay—l cook’s account stood uncori-ohoraied.i Little significance could be attached to - the empty bottles disovered on thel accused's premises, as it was onlyl natural that they should gravitate to the store, where they were purchased I from the settlers. . In summing up iiis lionour pointed I out that the accused had been re—l ceivlng an average of 10!) bottles per: week, but there was also evidence. that he had received some supplies? of empty bottles from neighbours. 5

Aflc-r'a short retil‘cmcfit théij-y brought In :1 verdch of not guilty and the accused was diSChurged.