HOME-MADE LIQUOR

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 278, 20 August 1938, Page 17

HOME-MADE LIQUOR

“Brewing In An Extensive Way” MAN AND WIFE CONVICTED “This man was found to be brewing in an extensive way, and, iu fact, it compared favourably with some of the little breweries in this country,” said Sub-Inspector D. A. McLean, in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday, when Hector Clark, wharf labourer, Aro -Street, Wellington, was charged with keeping liquor in a nolicence area. Clark’s wife, Florence Clark, was charged with selling beer in a no-licence area. Mr. W. C. Carroll was on the bench. Both defendants pleaded guilty. Hector Clark was fined £l5 and Mrs. Clark was convicted and ordered to pay costs. Clark was allowed one month in which to pay the tine.’ The sub-inspector said that, two years ago Clark came under the notice of the police regarding offences of making home-brew, and of recent months, as a result of complaints, the police took steps to check on what was taking place at Clark’s home. The'police had no difficulty in obtaining a sale from the female defendant, who was the wife of the male defendant.. Subsequently a warrant was obtained and the place searched. The male defendant at this time was ill in bed. No obstruction was put in the way of the police. Clark said he was making home-brewed beer and stout for his own consumption. When the search was made bottles were found, and a bad feature of the case was that most of the bottles still had labels on corresponding with recognised' brands of beer. „ „ Large Number of Bottles.

The police took possession of 366 quart bottles of home-brew beer, 467 pint bottles of home-brew, one quart bottle of home-brew stout, 24 pint bottles of stout, and 34 (half-pint nips. A Government analysis showed that the beer was equal in strength to 7.3. That was about the same strength as some of the best beer manufactured in New Zealand, or perhaps a little stronger. Defendant, the sub-inspector believed, was employed on the w’harf, and it might have beeu that there was a considerable amount of selling going on. Clark .’began a little over two year® a-o-o makin- home brew for his own consumption, said Mr. W. G. Hellish for defendants. Unfortunately ( defendant had a knack of making home brew a little better than the average home brew and acquired a little local reputation. He used to give away a tew samples to his friends, and they came back and asked him to make more. From that it drifted on by people asking him to let them have a few bottles, and they persuaded-him to take some money to cover the cost. Gradually it drifted on. defendant making a few sales but it was not generally sold to the public. The whole thing was confined to friends of Clark’s. The woman who sold the liquor had hitlieito not had anything to do with the matter. The day in question Mr. Clark was ill and the constable asked Mrs. Clark if lie could get board round the district or if she would take him. He said he was living in Holloway Road, and then asked if he could have two bottles of beer. She made the sale on the assumption that he came from friends of hers in Holloway Road. The ordinary home brew often ran up to 14 or 15 per cent., especially if it had been kept. Some of the bottles of -defendant’s had been made up for nearly nine months, and it was still only 7.3 per cent. It had not a vicious kick like some home brew. He did not think anyone drinking the home brew would be' deluded into thinking it was beer brewed by a well-known brewery.

“Cause Trouble Socially.”

“These are cases that cause a M. ot trouble socially to the police and neighbourhood, besides breaking the law and defeating the revenue,” said the magisThe sub-inspector-: 1 have had a good deal of experience with home brew, and I have never come across home brew as good. I take it. the beer would be all right for those who like it. There was nothing .injurious about it.

The magistrate then imposed a fine of £l5, and ordered the liquor to be destroyed, under the supervision of the police. He ordered the bottles to lie returned to their owners, dark was allowed one month in which to pay.