DUNEDIN BEER IN THE NORTH.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7079, 23 October 1884, Page 4

DUNEDIN BEER IN THE NORTH.

At the Auckland Police Court on Friday, October 10, a case was heard in which a flattering tribute was paid to the beer of a Dunedin manufacturer. One William John Suiter was charged with a breach of the Beer Duty Act in having failed to brand casks of beer he sent out with his name and place of business. The prosecution was instituted by the Collector of Customs (Mr Hill), for whom Mr Williameon appeared; and in opening the case for the prosecution, Mr Williamson said there was a firm cf brewers doing business in Auckland under the name of M'Naband Co. There was also a firm brewing in Dunedin styled Speight and Co. Now there was a demand at the Thames for Speight's beer, and it is alleged that the defendant had filled Speight's casks with hia own beer, and palmed the beer off as Speight and Co.'s, Dtinedin. He pressed for the heaviest penalty that the Act allowed, as he was informed that frauds o£ this kind had been going on in Auckland for some time past. He would call the Collectoi of Customs at the Thames (Mr Tizard), and Mr Craig (agent for Speight and Co. at the Thames), who would prove that beer had been sent from Suiter and Co.'s brewery in Speight and Co.'s casks. Stamps had been placed on the casks of such a recent date that the beer could not possibly have come from Dunedin as purported by the defendant. The 88th section of the Act was so stringent that any person prosecuted under the jßeer Duty Act had to prove himself not guilty of the offence alleged, and the case for the prosecution would not be hampered with any technical objections which might be endeavoured to be raised,—James Craig, agent for Speight and Co. at the Thames, said there was a considerable demand for the beer at the Thames, and it was generally preferred by the free houses to any other beer. On the'2nd of October he saw the p.s. Enterprise arrive at the Thames, and saw two hogsheads of beer on the steamer. They were branded in the usual manner of Speight's caskß. One cask was addressed with a card. He examined the caeka carefully, and found that they were branded Speight and Co., City Brewery, Dunedin. Be also noticed that the beer duty stamps were on. the casks, and had the date 1| 10 11884 written across them. He afterwards saw the casks untapped at Mr Twohill'a hotel, Thames.—Edward F. Tizard, collector of customs at the Thames, said he had gone to Mr Twohill's hotel in consequence of information he had received from Mr Craig on October 3. He saw two casks on the premises branded Speight and Co., Dunedin. The duty stamps were on the casks properly cancelled.—Edmund Twohill, licensee of the Brian Boru Hotel, Thames, said he purchased beer from various brewers. Speight and Co.'s beer was much more in favour than any other brand. He received two caska of beer from Suiter and Co., branded Speight and Co., on October 2.— In cross-examination by. Mr Cotter, the witness said that Mr Fleming, Suiter's agent, bad explained that through some mistake of a new carter employed by Suiter and Co. he had taken two of Speight and Co's empty casks from one of the tees on the wharf and removed them, and in consequence of the shortness of hogsheads at the brewery, these had been filled and sent to the Thames, upon the understanding that when the witness had emptied the casks they were to be returned with otherß to Speight and Co.—Mr Cotter then addressed the Court for the defence, and submitted that the beer had been sent in Speight and Co.'s casks by mistake. He spoke at length, and concluded by taking objection to the information, which did' not disclose whether defendant had committed an offence,— A longthy argument then ensued between the council for the prosecution and the Bench as to the reading of the clause of the Act bearing on tho point.—His Worship dismissed the information on the ground that it disclosed no offence. —Mr Williamson then gave notice of his intention to appeal on the decision given,