THE GOLLAN’S VALLEY STILL.
The charge against Cameron Bros. for being the owners of an illicit still at Gollan’s Valley was resumed at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Martin, S.M. Mr Gully appeared for the Crown, and Messrs Wilford and Skerrett for the defence.
Catherine Cameron, mother of the defendants, stated that she was the owner of a property at the valley. One son (Charles) lived with her, the others living further down on the beach, and occupying two houses. They all helped in the management of the farm, but were not partners.
All goods required on the farm were ordered by herself, and brought to her by Charles. She did not deal with Levin and Co., but got her goods from Feist and Harrowby, of the Hutt.
The road went through her stockyard, the gates to which were sometimes closed. Charles Cameron usually attended to them.
Had lived there for 36 years, but had no idea whatever of the area of her land. Had seen in the papers about the discovery of the still, but had no other knowledge of it.
On the day the still was discovered Charles was on the hills, having left the house about half-past 8. He came back about 12.30. He had gone out to get cattle for a man who was to call for them the following day.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Gully said the evidence he relied on was the fact of the defendants being occupiers of land on which a still was found. Then there was the finding of the coat near the still with papers in a pocket addressed to the Camerons. There was also evidence of a track from the still to the two houses of the Camerons, and the supposition was that it was a short cut from the still to these houses.
Mr Martin said he did not intend to call upon either Mr Wilford or Mr Skerrett for the defence. A still had been found in the bush, and a track was found leading to it, but, strange to say, no dray had been found on the Camerons’ premises.
How could he say that any of the Camerons were guilty of taking whisky up the road, any more than any of their neighbours? The property was presumably a sheep farm, and the tank found might be used in connection with farm work.
With regard to the papers found in the coat it was impossible to say to whom they belonged. The only circumstance calling for explanation was the quantity of sugar ordered, which in itself was somewhat suspicious.
He did not think the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction, and accordingly the case would be dismissed.
His Worship directed that the goods and apparatus seized should remain in the hands of the authorities, until the Government decided what should be done with them.
