ADULTERATED WHISKY

Otago Witness, Issue 3775, 20 July 1926, Page 27

ADULTERATED WHISKY

AUCKLAND PROSECUTIONS. AUCKLAND, July 16. The Police Court thia morning reaemble.l the tar of a hotel, doaens of whiaky bottles of nil 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 adnlterated whisky without fnlly informing the purchaser at the time of the sale' of the nature of the adulteration, and also with selling 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 the sample could be reduced to 35 degrees under proof. The whisky sold was 36.60 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 the sales. On February 8 last two inspectors called at the bar, and were supplied with some Doctors' Special whiskv from the shelf. It appeared from analysis that it was more than 35 degrees under proof. Ryder knew nothing about the whisky. He had always instructed his barmen* not to touch the liquor. However, one of his barmen had interfered with the whisky for two reasons—either to show a better 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. Unfortunately, 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 for 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 he 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 told 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. 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 had always given instructions to his barmen not to interfere with the liquor. He had always upon them to sell the 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 he had placed some water in the bottle. In consequence the barman was dismissed. Defendant was fined £5, and costs, a total of £lO 10s 6d, the other charges being withdrawn. The next case was against Andrew Beggs, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Devonport. He was charged with selling whisky in a bottle which had 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. Mr M‘Veagh, in this case also, admitted the 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 Mi M‘Veagh, some licensees kept in the bar their own diluted sample, as they were frequently invited to partake of hospitality from patrons of the hotel. As they had not the capacity to acce{>t 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 r* sample. Mr 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, the 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. Michael Keady, licensee of the 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. Moore, licensee of the Central Hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration. D. Cairns, licensee of the Newmarket Hotel, was finea £2 on oaoh 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 Qf Freeman’s Hotel, was fined £2 for selling whisky under a misleading label.