COGNAC BRANDY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 8

COGNAC BRANDY.

WERE HENNESY’S BOTTLES REFILLED? ' HOTEL LICENSEE CHARGED. Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Frederick Dobson, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Cuba street, was charged with using a labelled bottle for the purpose of bottling liquor for sale, without destroying the label. Inspector Ellison prosecuted and Mr A. Gray appeared for defendant. * Evidence was given that on April 24th Sergeant Fitzgerald and Constable Sleeth visited defendant’s hotel and purchased five samples of liquor. The first sample supplied was Hennesy’s “one star” Cogni.o brandy, for which 3s was paid. Afterwards the sample was handed to the Domin ion anaiyst for analysis. Subsequent to the brandy sample being purchased. Constable Sleeth procured a bottle of Hennesv’s Cognac from Bannatyne and Co., and this was also given to the analyst. Dr Maclaurin, Dominion analyst, said he received the brandy sample on April 25th. The bottles were sealed with was and a stamp. Witness made an analysis and the wholesale sample was found to contain good Cognac brandy, but the other bottle contained mainly grain spirit. It may have contained a small amount of _ brandy. Cognac brandy was not a grain spirit. Witness had no doubt that the bottle bought at the hotel did not contain all brandy.

In reply to Mr Gray, Dr Maclaurin suggested that there was never any variation in Cognac. Ho had found that there were slight variations in different kinds of whisky and brandy. All tho elements which went to make up Cognac brandy were present in defendant’s bottle, bub not in the right proportions. Mr Gray submitted that the information should be dismissed because there was no proof of the offence charged. The essence of the offence was bottling liquor for sale without destroying the old label on the bottle. In this case the police depended upon a comparison of the bottle bought from defendant with that purchased from a wholesade dealer. There was no proof that defendant bottled liquor for sale and failed to destroy the label on the bottle.

Inspector Ellison said that the prosecution was brought for the purpose of ascertaining whether by evidence of analysis it was possible to check the practice of filling bottles. His Worship reserved h:'.v decision and adjourned similar chaiges in connection with the other samples until judgment is given.