NOT BELIEVED

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 124, 28 May 1928, Page 6

NOT BELIEVED

LICENSEE'S STORY BRANDY NOT TRUE TO LABEL (By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post") Auckland; This Day. "I am quite sure that it was a case of mistaken loyalty to her employer, the licensee of the hotel," stated Mr. V. N. Hubble on behalf, of, the Health Department at the Magistrate's .Court in prosecuting Miss N. M' Donald, a barmaid at the Masonic Hotuf, Devonport, on a charge of failing to comply with a demand by a Health Inspector for a bottle of brandy for the purpose of analysis.- M.r. Hubble added that the case was brought merely as a warning to. others and that a conviction without penalty would meet tho case. Evidence was given by Inspector (York that in company with another inspector he visited the bar of the hotel and paid 2s for two nips of brandy out of a bottle, which he pointed out and was given. However, the defendant refused to sell him the bottle for 18s, so that he could have the contents analysed; she snatched the bottle out of his hand and placed it back on the shelves, telling him that if he wanted it he, would have to come behind the counter and get it. "When.she snatched tho bottle from him his nip of brandy was. upset; he also lost his warrant. Witness went behind the counter and got the bottle. "Witness added that he told her he was an inspector and produced his warrant. Mr. Moody, who appeared for the defendant, pleading not guilty, admitted tho facts, but said the inspector should not have gone behind the bar. There was-no doubt that the .'defendant at first did not understand who '• the inspectors were. "These inspectors cannot be obstructed in this- way," said the Magistrate in convicting tho defendant and ordering her to pay costs. Andrew Beggs, licensee of the' hotel, was then charged with using a bottle bearing a label without destroying the label for bottling liquor for sale. Mr. Moody appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence given by the inspector showed that the brandy in the bottle • containing a certain brand was not that spirit, but another. Counsel said this was quite so. This particular bottle was placed high up at the end of a shelf in the bar and was kept for use in the kitchen and for household purposes. It was • good brandy and no cheaper than the other spirit. "If the defendant really wanted to sell this brandy as true to label he would not have left it at the end of the shelves, but would have placed it with the othqr bottles," added Mr. Moody. , : "You cannot tell me that special kitchen brandy Vas kept in the bar," said Mr. Hunt, in imposing the minimum penalty of £20 upon the licensee. -