WHISKY ADULTERATION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20496, 22 February 1930, Page 14

WHISKY ADULTERATION

PROSECUTIONS AT DUNEDIN.

TWO LICENSEES IN COURT.

PENALTY OF £25 EACH.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] DUNEDIN. Friday.

Two hotelkeepers wero before the Polico Court this morning, each being separately charged with adulteration of whisky and with failing to destroy the label on a whisky bottle. William Dawson Cowie, who pleaded guilty, was represented by Mr. Hanlon. For tho department Mr. W. D. Taylor said that an inspector obtained a sample from a bottle of whisky in defendant's hotel and when it was subjected lo analysis it was shown that tho sample taken was not the brand of whisky shown on tho bottle, and was in fact inferior to that brand. Mr. Hanlon said that defendant was licensee of tho Gridiron Hotel, but he was away from home at tho time the offences were alleged to have been committed. Tho explanation was that tho barman, to keep the bottles from getting down 100 low, put the contents of several others into one bottle.

Cowie was ordered to pay costs amounting to £3 13s on tho first chargo and on the other charge was fined £25 and costs amounting to £4 19s. The other defendant, Frederick Griffiths Paape, was represented by Mr. Paterson, and pleaded guilty. Mr. Taylor, for the department, stated that the inspector had taken from defendant's hotel, the Oban, a sample purporting to bo a certain brand, but an analysis proved that it was inferior to that brand.

Mr. Patorson said that defendant was unable to offer any explanation of what had happened in this particular case, but he had suspected an employee of adulterating whisky in another instance, the person concerned having since been requested to leave defendant's employ. It was hardly likely deliberate adulteration had taken piace, argued counsel, for the whole thing would have meant a profit of only 6d a day. Defendant gave evidence along these lines and denied any knowledge of adulteration in the hotel.

Paape was fined £25 and costs, £4 15s 6d, on tho first charge, and on the other charge ho was ordered to pay costs amounting to £3 13s.