AN UNWELCOME Ad.

NZ Truth, Issue 985, 11 October 1924, Page 5

AN UNWELCOME Ad.

Prohibitionists Resent Pictured Pint-Pot

"Smiling Old Gentleman 1 ' Remains,

When the nothing-stronger-than-tea advocates of Ashburton recently rested their eyes on the picture of a smiling old gentleman holding aloft a pint pot of ale and advising thirsty souls to drink a certain brand of beer; they regarded it askance. . The police were informed and proceedings were duly instituted against Alexander S. Duncan, secretary of Ward's Brewery, whose beverage was the subject of the advertisement. The case came before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., m the Christchurch Magistrate's Court last week, the charge against Duncan being that by means of a placard, on the Ashburton railway station, he solicited ,orders for liquor m a no-license district. Mr. Wanklyn, said the defendant whom he represented, had no interest m the advertisement, Ward's having sold out to the N.Z. Breweries Ltd. at the time the placard was displayed on the station. by the Government, which reaped a benefit from advertisements on the railway stations. It was an established principle of law that the Crown could do no wrong and moreover, on account of the fact of the Crown not being mentioned m the laws concerning prohibition m the Ashburton area, the Act therefore did not apply to the Crown. The Magistrate said he ,was of the opinion that the only fair construction to put upon the placard m question was that it was purely an advertisement and not a solicitation for orders. The truest and best part of an advertisement was its constant repetition of the name of the goods advertised and that was what was done m the present instance. It amounted to no more

than if the company concerned had caused simply the name 1 of • the ale to; be displayed on a large hoarding on the station. It could not be contended ,that such an advertisement would convey to the people of Ashburton that! they were to send to Christchurch and procure the ale advertised. It did not solicit orders, but was merely an advertisement and the Act did not prohibit the advertisement of liquor m nolicense districts. What it did prohibit was the soliciting of orders m those districts, and.it being clear that that was not. done by the advertisement under, notice, the prosecution must fail. -