A BOTTLE OF BRANDY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20418, 26 May 1928, Page 6

A BOTTLE OF BRANDY.

NOT TRUE TO LABEL. BARMAID OBSTRUCTS INSPECTORS. (Special to Daily Times.) . AUCKLAND, May 25. " 1 am. quite, sure that it was a case; of mistaken loyalty to her employer, the licensee v jof the’ hotel/’ etated'&lr V, Hubble, on behalf-of the Healtji Department, at the Police Court this in prosecuting Miss-N. M'Doriald, a bar-' maid at the Masonic Hotel, Devonport, on a charge of failing to comply with a demand by a health inspector for a bottle of brandy for the purpose of analysis. Mr Hubble added v that the case was brought merely as a warning to others, and that a conviction without a penalty would meet the case. Evidence was given by Inspector York that, in company with another inspector, he visited the bar of the hotel and paid 2s tor two nips of brandy out of a bottle which he pointed, out. ,The defendant. however, refused to sell him the bottle for 18s, so that he could have the contents analysed. She snatched the bottle out of his hand and placed it back on the shelf, telling him that if he wanted it he would have to come behind the counter and- get it. When she snatched the bottle from, him his nip of brandy was upset. Witness went behind the counter and got the bottle. Witness added that he told her he was an inspector and produced his warrant. . Mr Allan Moody, Who appeared for the defendant;' pleaded not guilty. In admitting the facts, he said that the inspector should not have gone behind the bar. There was no doubt that the defendant at first did not understand who the inspectors were. “ These inspectors cannot be obstructed in this way.” said the Magistrate, in convicting the defendant and ordering her to pay costs. Andrew Beggs, licensee of the hotel, was then charged with using a bottle bearing a label, without destroying the label, for bottling liquor for sale. Mr Moody also appeared for the .d* fendant, who pleaded not guilty, Evidence given by the inspector showed that the brandy in the bottle containing a certain brand was not that spirit, butanother. Counsel said that this was quite so. This particular bottle was placed high up at the end of a shelf in the bar, and was kept for use in the kitchen and household purposes. If was good brandy, and no cheaper than the other spirit. “If the defendant really wanted, to sell this brandy is true to label he would not have left it at the end of the shelves, but would have placed it with other bottles,” added Mr .Moody. “You cannot .tell me that a special kitchen brandy was kept in the bar,” said Mr Hunt, in imposing the minimum penalty of £2O upon the licensee.