THE BEER DUTY PROSECUTIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 260, 2 November 1891, Page 2

THE BEER DUTY PROSECUTIONS.

A CONVICTION AT HAMILTON.

•(BY TELEGRAFH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Hamilton, this day, In re the beer prosecution cases Jackman (Government Inspector) v. Lewis, hotelkeeper, Te Awamutu, summoned for nob defacing a stamp on the barrel of beer which had been draws off, Lewis was lined £2 and costs.

The case Jackman v. Innes, for wrongful entries in books regarding the delivery of beer, followed. A large number of witnesses were called. The R.M. dismissed the case, with costs againsb the plaintiffi Jackman.

In re Jackman v. Innes, three mow charges were taken. Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of not having hh name on his barrels, and was fined 5s and costs, amounting to £6. Another case of a somewhat similar nature was proved againsb the defendant, but the Bench considered it so trivial that they simply admonished him, and allowed no costs. Justices wore on che Bench, the R.M... having loft by the morning train. The public opinion is that the--'----prosecutions take the line of persecution more than anything else, as in one instance oleven different informations were lodged, when there were really only three charges.