ILLICIT LIQUOR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25851, 23 May 1945, Page 8

ILLICIT LIQUOR

LICENSEE FINED £4OO COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE (Special) OAMARU, May 22. Norman Walter Taylor, licensee o£ the Georgetown Hotel, appeared on remand before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.. at the Magistrate's Court this afternoon, on four charges of breaches of the Customs and licensing laws. Mr H. J. S. Grater appeared for the accused, and Mr J. H, Main for the Crown. By leave of the court, charges of selling liquor on which full duly had not been paid and of selling adulterated liquor as unadulterated were withdrawn. The accused elected to be dealt with by the court, and pleaded guilty to having on his premises liquor on which the full duty had not been paid, and using bottles with labels affixed, without destroying such labels, for bottling liquor for sale. Mr Main recounted the circumstances of the visit of the police and the collector of Customs (Mr C. Roller) to the Georgetown Hotel on April 28, when a quantity of liquc-r. estimated at 32 gallons, was seized. The duty and sales tax on this liquor would have amounted to approximately £97. The defendant, said Mr Main, had committed a flagrant breach of the law’. He had disposed of his licence and did not deserve ever to have one again. The maximum monetary penalty prescribed bv the Act W’as .£SOO, and he asked that this penalty be imposed, adding that it would be difficult to imagine a more audacious breach of the Act. Mr Grater stated that Mr Taylor had held a licence for 15 years. He had been convicted four times for minor breaches of the Licensing Act, the most serious being the selling of liquor after hours. Tile records showed that the defendant had kept a good house. The defendant had voluntarily protected the interests of all who would suffer in the circumstances and had surrendered the lease and assigned his licence. Mr Bundle, said that an obvious condition of a licence was that the licensee should supply pure liquor to his customers and not adulterated liquor. There was no charge of selling, but there could be only one clear and obvious inference, that the liquor found was to be sold to the public. It would offend common sense to think otherwise. Presumably the liquor was to be sold to the unfortunate public as genuine liquor. Taylor had declined to state where he had obtained the liquor, and there was no evidence as to the length of time during which he had carried on this nefarious practice. The Legislature looked on the offence as a most serious one, and he had very considerable hesitation in considering a monetary penalty in lieu of imprisonment. He would be failing in his duty if he did not imoose a verv substantial penalty. The defendant was fined £4OO. including the analyst's fee of £l6 16s, on the charge of keeping the liquor, and on the charge of unlawfully using bottles he was fined £25. with costs (10s), the Crown Solicitor’s fee being fixed at £3 3s.