SLY GROG CHARGE

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20491, 6 May 1938, Page 9

SLY GROG CHARGE

SUPREME COURT TRIAL TAUMARUNUI MAIM CONVICTED SEQUEL TO POLICE RAID George Thomas White (35), lorrydriver, of Taumarunui, was found guilty by the jury In the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon, on a charge of keeping liquor for sale in a proclaimed area. Accused, who was represented by Mr W. J. King, pleaded not guilty to the charge, and the case for the Crown was presented by Mr H. T. Gillies and Mr J. R. FitzGerald. “I do not see how you could possibly have brought in any other verdict," was the comment of His Honour, Sir Michael Myers. Accused was remanded for sentence until Tuesday next. On Christmas Eve last, stated Mr Gillies, a watch was kept at accused's residence in Taumarunui. Various people were seen going in and out, pome with parcels and some emptyhanded. and in the afternoon the premises were raided by the police. In a garage at the back a considerable quantity of liquor was found end, said Mr Gillies, accused had admitted that the liquor belonged to him. The onus on the prisoner, said Mr Gillies, was to prove that the liquor so found was not for sale. Ninety-six Bottles of Ale Constable R. W. Cross, of Wellington, who was on duty at Taumarunui on Christmas eve, described the watch kept on accused's premises. He detailed the arrival of several men and also their departure with parcels. Two other constables Joined witness at 2.15 p.m. and the three searched the premises under warrant. Witness did not see the liquor found, but later helped to remove 96 full bottles of ale from the premises. To Mr King witness said that he saw five people visit the house and leave within half an hour. Mr King: Do you consider that unusual in Taumarunui? Witness replied that he had thought it unusual but did not know if it would be unusual for a Christmas eve in Taumarunui. Constable W. E. C- Bruce, of Taumarunui, also gave evidence of the raid. Witness stated that he had noticed men leaving accused’s premises earlier on the same day. House Previously Raided To Mr King, witness said he had raided accused'9 premises before, on November 27, and had taken a quan- | tity of liquor from the house. Accused had been convicted and fined as a result of this raid. Witness agreed that, provided notification was made, a person could hold any quantity of liquor on his premises if it were only for his own consumption. Corroborative evidence was also given by 'Constable P. O’Sullivan, of Manunui, who tejok part in the search of accused's premises. Accused had admitted he owned the beer found on the premises, but would not say how he got it. Henry Valder, car salesman, of Taumarunui, said he had had the use of the garage mentioned. Witness last used the garage on Christmas Eve, when he complained to accused about the liquor in it. Questioned by Mr King, witness admitted receiving from accused a bag of a dozen bottles of beer. The beer was lent him by accused since some ordered by witness had not ar* rived in time for Christmas. Such lending was common in Taumarunui. Witness did not pay for the liquor. Questions From Bench In the box, accused admitted that he had been convicted on December 9 last for keeping liquor and fined. That followed the raid on November 27, when five dozen bottles of beer were taken from the house. The police had missed a quantity of beer in the larger shed at the rear of his ground. This was later placed In the garage, and a portion of it was that found oft Christmas Eve. Accused had sold no liquor on Christmas Eve. Several people had visited him and had drinks on the premises, while he had given one person two bottles, but had taken no payment. To his Honour, accusel said that he had been three times convicted of sly-gro-gging. Accused admitted that he had got most of his liquor by road, but small lots by rail. He declined to state from whom the liquor was received. It was true that from May, 1936, (Continued In next column)

to November, 1937, he had been carrying on a slv-grogging trade substantially all the time. His turnover was five or six dozen a week. No address xvas made by the prosecution and following Mr King’s address, His Honour summed up. “Accused Not Frank” Addressing the jury, His Honour said that the Crown had discharged its duty of proving that liquor had been found on accused’s premises. To acquit accused, the jury would have to be convinced that accused had told the truth. He had not spoken frankly as to his previous convictions and he had called no witnesses to vouch for the truth of his own story.

Accused had elected to be tried by a jury instead of by the magistrate, yet he had given the police or prosecution no assistance in proving the truth of his own story. He had “humbugged" the police. In a nutshell, the verdict of the jury would depend on whether they believed accused or not-