PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE BEER DUTY ACT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 880, 11 January 1889, Page 22

PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE BEER DUTY ACT.

11. M. CUSTOMS v. HAMILTON. The first of a series of prosecutions to be brought against local brewers for evasions of the regulations of the Beer Duty Act was continued in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday, and lasted the greater part of tho day. Mr Bell prosecuted on behalf of the CrowD, and Mr Jellicoe appeared for Mr Hamilton, proprietor of thePolhill Gully Brewery. The charges set forth that defendant had neglected to enter in a book for the purpose the date of receipt of brewing material ; had brewed more beer from

the material than had been reported ; and had delivered more beer than had been accounted for. Two witnesses for the defence were examined on Monday, Jordan and Hamilton, the latter’s testimony only being finished at the rising of the Court. In his evidence Hamilton stated that he entered, the quantity of beer brewed in a book kept for the purpose as provided by the regulations of the Beer Duty Act, but sometimes stored beer in bis lemonade factory in Customliousestreet, prior to its sale, and delivered it to customers from there. On the 9th November, 1888, bad received eight hogsheads from a brew, not 15 as had been suggested. Defendant refused to produce his ledger and day-book at the request of Mr Bell, who appealed to the Court. On being asked by Mr Robinson, R.M., to produce the books or to state bis reasons for declining to do so, defendant (acting on the advice ol Mr Jellicoe) still declined, on the ground that the books might disclose evidence of matters of an incriminating nature referring to other possible charges under the Act. Mr Bell submitted that the witness was trifling with tho Court, and was bound to answer the question as to where the books were. His Worship said he did not know that he had power to compel the witness to answer under the circumstances. The refusal, however, might prejudice the defendant’s case. Finally, after the witness had been furtner examined, and Mr Bell had asked for a conviction before calling evidence for the Crown—which was refused by the Court —Mr Bell applied for an adjournment in order to consider whether he should appeal from the Court’s decision as to the production of the defendant’s books. It was decided to adjourn the case until Friday (to-day), for which date the charges against Mr Edmonds are set down.