DUNEDIN BEER IN THE NORTH.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7000, 31 October 1884, Page 4

DUNEDIN BEER IN THE NORTH.

At the Auokland Police Court on Friday, October 10, a case was heard in which a flattering tribute was paid to the beer of a Dunedin manufacturer. One William John Suiter was charged with a breach of the Beer Duty Act in having failed to brand casks of beer he sent out with his name and place of business, The prosecution was instituted by the Collector of Customs (Mr Hill), for whom Mr Williamson appeared ; and in opening the case for the prosecution, Mr Williamson said there waß a firm of brewers doing business in Auckland under the name oi M'Nab and Co. There was also a firm brewing in Dunedin styled Speight and Co. Now there was a demand at the Thames for Speight's beer, and it was alleged that the defendant had filled Speight's casks with his own beer, and palmed the beer off as Speight and Co.'s, Dunedin. He pressed for the heaviest penalty that the Act allowed, at he was informed that frauds of this kind bad been going on in Auckland for some time past. He would call the Oollectoi of Customs at the Thames (Mr Tizard), and Mr Craig (agent for Speight and Co, at the Thames), who would prove thai beer had been sen£ from Suiter and Co.'t brewery in Speight and Co.'s casks. Stamps had been placed on the casks oi such a recent date that the beer could not possibly have come from Dunedin as purported by the defendant. The 38th section of the Act was so stringent that anj person prosecuted under the Beer Datj Act had to prove himself not guilty ol the offence alleged, and the case for the prosecution would not be hampered witl any technical objections which might bt endeavored to be raised.— James Craig agent for Speight and Co. at the Thames said there was a considerable demand foi the beer at the Thames, and it wai generally preferred by the free houses tc any other beer. On the 2nd of Octobei he saw the p.s. Enterprise arrive at tht Thames, and saw two hogsheads of beei on the steamer. They were branded it the usual manner of Speight's casks One cask was addressed with a card. H< examiued the casks carefully, and founc that they were branded Speight and 00. City Erewery, Dunedin. He also noticed that the beer duty stamps were on th< casks, and had the date 1 | 10 | 18& written across them. He afterwards say i the casks untapped at Mr Twohill's hotel Thames. — Edward F. Tizard, Collector o Customs at the Thames, said he hadgon* to Mr Twohill's hotel in consequence o: information he had received from Mi Craig on October 3. He saw two cask; on the premises branded Speigh and Co., Dunedin. The duty stampi were on the casks properly cancelled,— Edmuad Twohill, licensee of the Briai Bora Hotel, Thames, said he purchased beer from various brewers. Speight anc Co.'s beer was much more in favor thai any other brand. He received two cask of beer from Suiter and Co., brandec Speight and Co., on October 2. — In cross' examination by Mr Cotter, tbe witnes said that Mr Fleming, Suiter's agent, hat explained that through some mistake of i new carter employed by Suiter and Co. he had taken two of Speight aud Co.'i empty casks from one of the tees on thi wharf and removed them, and in conse quence of the shortness of hogs i heads at the brewery, these had beei > filled and sent to the Thames, upon tin understanding that when the witness hat emptied the casks they were to be re turned with others to Speight and Co.— i Mr Cotter then addressed the Court foi i the defence, and submitted that the beei had been sent in Speight and Co.'s caski i by mistake. He spoke at length, anc l concluded by taking objection to the in--5 formation, which did not disclose whethei > defendant had committed an offence. — A , lengthy; argument then ensued betweei the counsel for the prosecution and tht

Bench as to the reading of the clause of tbo Act bearing on the point. — His Worship dismissed the information on the ground that it disclosed no offence.— Mr Williamson then gave notice of his intention to appeal on the decision given.