OFFENCES UNDER THE BEER DUTY ACT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 878, 28 December 1888, Page 21

OFFENCES UNDER THE BEER DUTY ACT.

A series of charges under the Beer 3 1 by Act were preferred against Andrew Hamilton, brewer, of Mitchelltown, by die Customs Department, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Friday morning. Mr H. D. Bell appeared for the prosecution. At the outset, Mr Jellicoe, who represented the defendant, asked for an adjournment. The statute put the onus upon the defendant of proving his inno-

cence, and he contended that he had not; had sufficient time to prepare his case. Mr Bell objected to the remand, remarking ,that, apart.from the summons, tho defendant had bad considerable notice of the charges which had now been brought against him. After tome argument Mr Bell said that if he defendant would produce his books he would agree to the adjournment, Mr Jellicoe said his client would not produce his books. His Worship declined to> grant the remand, as lie considered that tho defendant had received reasonable notice of, the charges. The defendant was then charged that he did on the sth Novemher, and at divers other times during the said month, unlawfully neglect to> keep books as required by the Beer Duty Act, 1880, that is to say, did not from day to day during the month of November enter or cause to be entered in a book kept by him for that purpose an account of- all materials .by him purchased for the purpose. of- producing beer. The defendant ...pleaded not guilty. In opening jtne case, Mr Bell said he intended to s]fdw : that a series of systematic f rauds had ' been practised upon the Customs. He intended also to show, by evidence, that entries of material obtained by the defendant had not been made in his books. Mr Jellicoe contended that to constitute an offence fraudulent; omission must be proved. He argued that the offence of neglecting to keep books was not proved by omission to enter. His Worship agreed with this view of the matter, holding that to make the omission punishable it must be fraudulent.. Mr Bell then said he would have the information amended by inserting the word “fraudulent,” which would bring the offence within the terms of section 29 of the Act. Mr Jellicoe objected, pointing out that the penalty for an infringement of the section upon which the defendant was charged was LSO, whereas the penalty under section 29 was LIOO. There was a great difference between the twG offences. His Worship refused to allow the information to be altered, and the charge was dismissed. He reserved the question of costs for future consideration. Seven charges of having unlawfully and fraudulently neglected to make entries of the beer removed from his premises, were then preferred against the defendant, who pleaded not guilty in each case. Mr Jellicoe asked for an adjournment, which was refused, except in two of the cases. The other five cases were then proceeded with, his Worship calling upon Mr Jellicoe to open his defence. The latter’s case was to the effect that for the purpose of sale the beer was removed from the brewery to what was called an office cr factoiy in town ; that on removal it was duly entered in the brewery book, and the duty stamp affixed, and consequently no entry was required for the removal from the factory to customers. If, then, the prosecution relied upon the delivery on any particular date, it afforded, no proof that the beer on that date was removed from the brewery without being entered. In the majority of cases the customers obtained their beer from the factory, and what wa3 a legitimate course of business the Customs now proposed to treat as fraudulent on the part of the defendant. He then called Frederick Jordan, the defendant’s manager, who stated that no beer was ever taken from the brewery without being entered and stamps affixed. Mr Bell commenced his cross examination of the witness, but had not concluded when the • Court rose. The case was adjourned until January 7- There are three other charges to he preferred against, the defendant of having neglected to keep books ; with neglecting to make proper entry on November 9 of seven hogsheads of beer ; and with falsely entering eight hogsheads instead of fifteen on the same date. Four prosecutions under the Act against John Edmunds, brewer, of Pitone, and two against Caleb Edmunds were adjourned until January 7.