ADULTERATED WHISKY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19844, 17 July 1926, Page 12

ADULTERATED WHISKY

AUCKLAND PROSECUTIONS. WATER AND FALSE LABELS. SEVERAL HOTELKEEPERS PINED. (P- —r United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, July 10. The Police Court this morning resembled the bar of a hotel, dozens of whisky bottles of all brands being stacked on the tables in front of the solicitors. However, the Court had not been transformed into licensed premises, for there was an absence of glasses. . The liquor was purely for exhibition in several cases where hotelkeepers in the city and suburbs were prosecuted on behalf of the Health Department. The first case taken was against Harry Ryder, licensee of Esplanade Hotel, Devonport. He was charged with selling adulterated whisky without fully informing the purchaser at the time of the sale of the nature of the adulteration, and also with soiling whisky which did not comply with the standard described by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, Mr M’Veagh, who appeared for defendant, said he would not dispute the sale to the inspectors or the result of the analysis. He would also admit tho sample could be reduced to 35 degrees under proof. The whisky sold was 3C.C9 per cent, under proof. Ryder was very well known, and faithfully conducted the Esplanade Hotel. He was only the manager, and was paid a fixed salary. He did not have to depend on sales or commissions from tho sales. On February 8 last two inspectors called at the bar, and wore supplied with some Doctors’ Special whisky from the shelf. It appeared from analysis that it was more than 35 degrees under proof. Ryder knew nothing about the whisky. lie had always instructed his barmen not to touch the liquor. However, one of his barmen had interfered with tho whisky for two reasons—cither to show a bettor return or to profit by the sale. The barman was obviously in a position to adulterate. In fact, he had admitted he put some water with it, and was afterwards dismissed. Since that date the inspectors had called again, when the barman had Invited them to select any bottle they wished for the purposes of analysis. This was done and the particular bottle selected and analysed answered the test. Untortunately, said Mr M’Veagh, that was no answer to the charge, as the licensee was responsible, for he was the seller by the action of his servant, the barman. Strangely enough, whisky was food tor the purposes of the Act. Counsel emphasised the fact that Ryder derived no pecuniary gain for he was paid a salary which was quite independent from the returns of the bar of the hotel. Mr Paterson said he was prepared to call the barman in question, who would deny that he told the defendant ho had put water in the whisky. Both barmen would say they were handed whisky each day by the defendant. Two porters also had access to the store. Both barmen asked defendant the reason why they were dismissed, and the defendant tvld t them that the directors ordered him to dismiss them. A sinister feature of the case was that the bottle of whisky which was handed to the inspectors was dirty and well fingered, while it was nearly full. Air M’Veagh: I dispute the facts as outlined by Air Paterson, and I will put Ryder in the witness .box. Defendant then gave evidence and said that the course he adopted was to bring liquor from the cellar to the bar every day unopened. He liad always given instructions to his barmen not to interfere with the liquor. He had always impressed upon them ,to sell tho best liquor to customers. Witness did not add water to the whisky. The night the inspectors called to take a sample witness spoke to one of the barmen, when the latter said that the whisky was “all right.’’ ■ However, some time later the barman admitted to witness that ho had placed some water in the bottle. In consequence the barman was dismissed. Witness always paid his barmen a little in excess of the ordinary wages. Air Paterson: How long have these barmen been in the hotel? Witness; One has been there four years and the other about three years. Air Paterson: Do you sell any draught whisky in your hotel?—No. Air Paterson: Why is a five-gallon jar of distilled water ordered every month? Where does it go to? Witness: I don’t know. I never took delivery of any five-gallon jar of distilled water. Air Paterson: Do you know that it was ordered and received at your hotel ? Witness: No. On one occasion I asked tho barman what it was for, and he said that it was for the counter, as Devonport water was not too good at the time. Mr Paterson then called one of the barmen who had been dismissed. James Carrol denied that he told Ryder that bo had added some watea to tho bottle of whisky. The five-gallon jar of water was never used in the bar. When tho bottles came from the cellar they were all capsuled. Witness never placed any water in the whisky. Mr M’Veagh: Vou always got on all right with Mr Ryder up to the time you were dismissed?—Yes. Mr M’Veagh : Well, /then, can you suggest why you should be suddenly dismissed after three years’ service?—No. Mr Paterson: Air Ryder wanted to make a defence for himself in this case. Mr Paterson then said ho only desired a conviction on the charge where the liquor did not comply with the standard. Defendant was then fined £5, and costs, a total of £lO 10s 6d, the other charges being withdrawn. The next cose was against Andrew Beggs, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Devonport. He was charged with selling whisky in a bottle which bad attached a false label, purporting to indicate that the whisky was D.C.L. Very Old Special brand and with using a bottle for sale without first destroying the label. Air Al’Veagh, in this case also, admitted tho sale and analysis. When the health inspectors went to the hotel Mr Beggs was not present, and the inspectors asked for a bottle of D.C.L. whisky. This was placed on the counter. In some cases, said Mr M’Veagh, some licensees kept in the bar their own diluted sample, as they wore frequently invited to partake of hospitality from patrons of the hotel. As they had not the capacity to accept all the drinks when asked, they had their own special bottle, which was not very strong.—(Laughter). It was really Mr Begg’s own bottle that the inspectors seized for the purposes of sample. Air Paterson said that the excuse was really an ingenious one. If it had been Mr Begg’s own bottle should not the barman have said so? Anyway, the bottle had. been well fingered.—(Laughter.) * Defendant was fined £5, and costs, on one charge only, tho other being withdrawn. Other cases dealt with were as follows: John Reilly, licensee of tho Royal Hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration, and £2 on each of two charges of selling liquor under a misleading label. Alichael Ready, licensee of tho Britomart Hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration, and £2 on a false label charge. William John O’Dowd, licensee of the Carlton Club Hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration. S. A. Aloore, licensee of tho Central Hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration. D. Cairns, licensee of the Newmarket Hotel, was fined £2 on each of two charges of selling whisky under a misleading label. Bruce Tudor, licensee of the Albion Hotel, was fined £5 for adulteration. E. Dervan, licensee of Freeman’s Hotel, was fined £2 for selling whisky under a misleading label.