SLY GROG SELLING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2611, 20 September 1909, Page 2

SLY GROG SELLING.

THE LOCKER SYSTEM IN “DRY”

DISTRICTS

I'Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Sept, 18. In the Magistrate’s Court, belore Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., Peter Hartshorn was charged on four counts of trafficking in sly grog at Johnsonville. The allegations were that (1) on or about 23rd of August, at' Johnsonville, he received an order for liquor from Ed. Sullivan in a No-license district; (2) on <.r about the same date at.Johnsonville he unlawfully sold liquor to Edmund Sullivan; (3) on or about tho Ist inst., at Johnsonville he received an order for liquor from William Farmer in a No-license district; (4) on the 21st of August, at Johnsonville, he unlawfully sold liquor to Andrew Wood. Sub-In-spector Norwood prosecuted, and Mr. Fitz Gibbon appeared for the defence. The last mentioned case was taken first. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Andrew Wood, a blacksmith of Johnsonville, gave evidence. He stated that at 5 p.m., on the 21st of last month he visited defendant’s premises, known previous to the carrying of prohibition as the Railway Hotel. • There he met an acquaintance named David Fisher, who, in defendant’s presence, asked him to “have a locker.” A little later witness, in reply to Hartshorn, intimated' that he would take a locker. Defendant told •him that it would cost 6d entrance fee, and 6d a week afterwards. He showed witness his locker and presented him with a key. Witness ordered six bottles of beer, which cost him 6s, to be placed in his locker. He also paid his fee and first week’s rent. Witness thought there was about a dozen lockers altogether. Finding that his key would open several lockers he left the “club." To Mr. Fitz Gibbon : Witness did not know that at a meeting of locker-hold-ers it had been decided to expell him because he had asked a fellow member to sell the beer.

Frank Lawson stated that he was present when the previous witness took beer out of his locker in the presence of defendant' The latter did not attempt to sell him beer. Constable Cox said the defendant informed him that lie intended running his premises on the locker system. Defendant showed him six lockers. He said that he had formed a club of 17 members, with a promise of 35 others. To. Mr. Riddell: Dwan Bros, were the owners of the leasehold of the premises. The bar and fittings of the old hotel still remained, but temperance drinks only were displayed. Sergeant Rutledge had removed some whisky bottles. In some of the lockers were found either whisky or- beer. There was no secrecy, about the affair. Sergeant Rutledge, who accompanied Constable Cox to Hartshorn’s premises in order to execute a search warrant, stated that defendant informed him that lie was “secretary” to the club. Witness found several bottles of liquor and also a number of empties. _ T. W. Young, wine and spirit merchant, gave evidence relative to supplying liquor in accordance with orders. The charge against defendant of receiving an order for liquor from Win. Farmer was next taken. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Farmer, a laborer, who stated that he was a member of the “social club.” he said he gave to defendant an order for two gallons of beer to be placed in his locker. Witness took delivery of the beer at the railway station, and defendant bore it off and placed it in his locker.

T 0 Mr. Fitz Gibbon: Defendant was merely witness’ agent. Thos. Albert Madden, secretary for Messrs Staples and Company, brewers, produced an order for beer from Peter Hartshorn, signed by William Farmer.

To. Mr. Fitz Gibbon: Defendant made no profit out of the order. Tho two charges in which Edward Sullivan was concerned were then proceeded with. Defendant pleaded not guilty in both cases. Sullivan submitted evidence similar to that already given by previous witnesses

David Martin, carrier, and a member of the club, also gave evidence. He said that the club consisted of eight members. There was a committee of three, of which witness was chairman. This closed the case for the prosecution.

For the defence, Mr. Fitz Gibbon pointed out that the Licensing Act explicitly set out that it was an offence to take an order for liquor either as the vendor or his agent. In the present ease the defendant had been the agent, not of the vendor, but of the purchaser. He argued that the locker system was a perfectly legitimate one, and was conducted in other “dry" districts. It was known that it was a profitable business, but as the club had only been opened on the 21st of August, and the raid was made on the 28tli, there was little time to work up a connection. No! evidence had been given that the liquor had been sold by defendant, and counsel contended that the charge of orders must also fail. The evidence given by Wood, he remarked, could not be relied on, as he had proved an unsatisfactory member of tne club, and it was stated he had been accordingly expelled. Peter Hartshorn, defendant, stated that he had taken over the old Railway Hotel, but he made no alterations in the premises since the license had expired. He admitted that he had purchased liquor in order to initiate the social club, but the first member to join the club had received it for nothing. Witness denied that he had ever sold any of it. Pie had conducted licensed premises for several years. The members of the club purchased their beer in kegs, and witness bottled it for them, because otherwise it would not fit into the locker.

Evidence was also given by a member of the club.

In passing judgment, Mr. Riddell said that the mere'fact that no-license had been proclaimed in the district did not debar persons from buying and consuming liquor. In the two charges of receiivng orders the form produced was

correct enough, but the only circumstances that could lead to a conviction was that defendant had affixed his name to the order. He considered these two charges must be dismissed. As to the charge of selling, his Worship said there was evidence of the sale in one case, and that liquor had been given in another, which the Court could treat as a sale if it chose. He would deal witli both cases aliko. Defendant must be convicted of selling liquor, and a fine of £lO in each of theso cases was imposed, with costs £2 16s. , 3 The liquor was lorfeited, and defendant was warned that he ran a risk in affixing his name to the orders.