Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


At the Police Court this morning, before Messrs B. Hallcnstein and D. Brent, Justices, Oeorge M'Qavin was charged, on the information of C. W. S. Chamberlain (Collector of Customs), for that withiu tho space of six months past, to wit on the 24th April, being a brewer as defined by the Beer Duty Act, ISBO, he did unlawfully neglect to affix and cancel in the manner required by the Act a stamp upon a cask, of the capacity of one hogshead, containing beer. Mr B. C. Haggitt appeared for the department ; Sir R. Stout for defendant.

There were four similar informations against M'Gavin. Sir Robert Stout said that these other informations were practically the same as the first—they all related to tho same date. Defendant would plead guilty. Under a strict reading of tho Act, the only course open to tho Bsnch was to inflict a fine for each offence. There were circumstances in the case which it was intended to bring under the notice of the Government, but there was no need to trouble the Bench about that. Tr.eir duty was quite clear iu tho matter.

Mr Haggitt said that that being so their Worships’ duty under section 17 of the Act was simply to inflict a penalty of L2O in each case. The Bench could inflict a fine of no less and no more. He was instructed to ask for costs.

Sir R. Stout agreed that the Act was drawn up in such a way that the Bench had no power but to inflict the penalty mentioned.

Mr Hallenstein : The duty of the Bench is very clear. We inflict a fine of L2O and costs in each case.

The total amount of fine and costa was LlO7.

James Wilson was then similarly charged on two informations, the date referred to being the 20th of April. Mr Haggitt appeared for the Collector of Customs ; Mr J. Macgregor for defendant. Mr Macgregor said that there had been an offence under the Act—defendant had neglected to affix a stamp on two hogsheads. The Act was very stringent, and it would be of no avail to show that there was no intention to evade payment of the duty. The mere fact that there was an omission to affix the stamps was an offence under the Act, and it would therefore bo useless to show how the offence occurred. Defendant would plead guilty. The Bench said that the same penalty would be imposed as in the other cases—a fine of L2O and costs on each information. The amount of fine and costs was L 42 16s.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

EVADING THE BEER DUTY ACT., Issue 7982, 10 August 1889

Word Count

EVADING THE BEER DUTY ACT. Issue 7982, 10 August 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.