GINGER WINE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 10482, 20 October 1894, Page 3

GINGER WINE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—As I consider myself ill-used by the action of the police in the ginger wine case, I ask you to kindly insert my complaint. Mr Broham knew, before issuing the summonses, that the police, the Customs and tho Chairman of tho Licensing Bench had been consulted, and tho wine sant to Wellington for analysis, and that Mr Pender, Mr Rose and the Chairman, while disclaiming any power to sanction its sale, were equally of opinion that it was not a breach of the law. The following ia an extract from the Lyttelton Times of Oct. 9 : Speakipg to an amendment to the Licensing Bill, Mr Ssddon said, “As the law at present stood, those who sold wine, cider or perry could do so in quantities leas than two gallons, without any license at all,” which shows that up to eight days since, wa had good grounds for believing that we required no license to sell. Mr Broham objected to this being read, as it was a mere newspaper report, and yet asked very warmly if we did not read our papers to know that there had been convictions, so he said. I don’t believe that Mr Broham himself knows of any in Canterbury for the last fifteen years, at least .with the exception of one the other day at Ashburton for, I think, selling quinine wine. Some of us had sold ginger wine in Christchurch from two up thirty-seven years without challenge, and wo were sampled some two or three years since by the police, and heard no more about it. Further, there ia no standard of strength allowable; it is purely a matter of opinion whether anyone is likely to drink enough of a beverage to intoxicate. Thus, a nauseous draught, strongly alcoholic, may not be an intoxicating drink, because it is not likely to be drunk in sufficient quantities to intoxicate. From the circumstances above narrated, I submit that, in common fairness and as a matter of common sense, we were entitled to be informed that we were breaking the law. But Mr Broham had one idea, i.e., to convict. Mr Beetham, too, has droll ideas of j nstice. “ Apparently wa had no intention to offend,” but were fined 20a and coats, including one witness 21s. He ia very funny, very.—l am, &c.. ONE OF THE VICTIMS.