EVADING THE BEER DUTY ACT.
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.
Permanent link to this item
EVADING THE BEER DUTY ACT., Evening Star, Issue 7982, 10 August 1889
EVADING THE BEER DUTY ACT. Evening Star, Issue 7982, 10 August 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.