S.M. REJECTS FIRM’S DEFINITION OF ‘WINE’

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30763, 29 May 1965, Page 1

S.M. REJECTS FIRM’S DEFINITION OF ‘WINE’

(New Zealand Preet Association)

AUCKLAND, May 28.

Chaos would be created if the word “wine” was interpreted to mean spirits, ale, beer and other liquor, said Mr A. A. Coates, S.M., today when he convicted Montana Wines, Ltd., on a charge of unauthorised selling of liquor.

In a reserved deci-

sion, Mr Coates ordered the firm to pay costs, £1 10s and witnesses’ expenses £2.

The Magistrate heard evidence in defence of the case, which began in Christchurch, on May 5. He said that on August 8 last year, a constable purchased from the firm’s premises at 368 A Colombo street, Christchurch, one bottle of Gilbeys gin sling and one of Cossack orange vodka, for 15s 6d. The firm was a holder of a wine-reseller’s licence.

The police alleged that by making these two sales to the constable, the firm sold liquor of a kind it was not authorised to sell by its licence. The contents of each bottle were found by a Government analyst to contain 39 per cent proof spirit. The Magistrate said that Mr D. S. Beattie, for the firm, had submitted that New Zealand wine meant liquor which was produced from any fruit or vegetable and was of a strength not exceeding 40 per cent proof spirit. Mr Beattie had said that both gin sling and orange

vodka fell within the definition of New Zealand wine appearing in section 2 of the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962. If this was so, the firm had not committed an offence because it was licensed to sell New Zealand wine. “If I accept Mr Beattie's contention it would mean that wine would include spirits, ale, beer, porter, stout, cider or sherry or any fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor which contains not less than 2 per cent and not more than 40 per cent proof spirit,” said the Magistrate. “I cannot think that Parliament ever intended so wide an interpretation to be placed on the word ‘wine,’ an interpretation which would bring about some extraordinary results and would defeat many of the provisions of the act as to the different kinds of licences which may be granted. “Indeed, it would create chaos, and that would certainly not be intended by Parliament.” Accepted Meaning The Magistrate said the normally accepted meaning of “wine” was a fermented juice of a grape used as a beverage.

Neither gin sling nor orange vodka could be fairly classed as wine in the ordinarily ac-

cepted meaning of the word. Neither of them was basically, and predominantly, a fermented juice of a grape or any other type of fruit. The Magistrate said that neither the makers of the gin sling, Gilbey's, Ltd., nor the maker of the orange vodka. Distillers Company (N.Z.), Ltd., held a wine-maker’s licence. Makers’ Attitude “Obviously neither of them regarded these products as a New Zealand wine, for it is highly improbable that either of these two reputable companies would have made and sold this liquor without holding the appropriate licences,” he said.

“I hold that neither the gin sling nor the orange vodka sold by the defendant to the police constable was New Zealand wine within the meaning of that expression, as used in the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962. “Therefore, the offence charged has been proved and the defendant must be, and is, convicted.” The Magistrate said that because both parties regarded the case as a test case, he would not impose a fine. Mr M. P. Tetley-Jones, for the firm, said, after hearing the decision, that the firm would appeal against the Magistrate’s decision.