HOTELKEEPERS FINED.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17088, 17 July 1926, Page 14

HOTELKEEPERS FINED.

ADULTERATED WHISKY SOLD

AUCKLAND I'IIOSECUTIONS

I Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, last, night

The Police Court, this morning resembled llio bar of nu hotel. Dozens of whisky bottles of all brands were stacked on 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 present, purely as exhibits in several cases where hotelkeepers in the city and suburbs were prosecuted on varius charges by the Health Department (as mentioned briefly in our third Edition yesterday). The first case taken was against Harry Ryder, licensee of the Esplanade hotel, Devonport. He was charged with selling adulterated whisky wit boat fully informing' the purchaser at the time of sale of 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. SALE NOT DISPUTED.

Mr. McVeagh, who appeared for defendant, said he would not dispute the sale to the inspectors, or the result of the analysis. Ha would also admit the regulation that whisky could be. reduced to 35 degrees under proof. The whisky sold was 36 to 39 per cent. under proof. Kyder was very well known, ami had faithfully conducted the Esplanade hotel. He was only manager, and was paid a, fixed salary. He did not have to depend on sales, or commissions from sales. On February 8 last two inspectors called at the bar, and were supplied with some "doctor's" special whisky from a shelf. It appeared from the analysis that it was more than 35 degrees under proof. Kyder knew nothing about the whisky. He had always instructed bis barmen not to touch Hie. 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 the 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 purposes of analysis. That was done and the particular bottle selected, when analysed, answered the test. Unfortunately, said Air. McVeagh. that was no answer to the charge, as the licensee was responsible, lor he was seller by the ac Hon 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 return of the bar or hotel. "A SINISTER FEATURE."

.Mr. I'atci'son said he was prepared to call the. barman in question, who would deny that he told defendant he had put. water in the whisky. Both barmen would say they were handed the whisky each day by defendant. Two porters also had access to the store. Both barmen asked defendant the reason why they were dismissed, and defendant told them that the directors bad 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 lingered, while it was nearly full.

Defendant then gave evidence and said that the. course lie 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 impressed upon them to sell the ,be.st liquor to customers. Witness did not add any water to the whisky. The same night ;is the inspectors called to take the sample witness spoke to one barman, ivhun tin: latter said that, the whisky was all right. However, some time later the barman admitted to witness that lie 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. Mr. J'aterson : How long have these barmen been in the hotel?- —One had been there four years, and th» other about three years.

Do you sell any draught whisky in your hotel?—No.

Why is a five-gallon jar of distilled water ordered every month? Where does it go to?—I don't know; I never took delivery of any five-gallon jar of distilled water.

Do you know that it was ordered and received at your hotel? No. On one occasion I asked the barman what it was for, and he said that it was for the counter, as Hie Devonport water was not too good at any time.

Mr. Paterson then called one of the barmen who had been dismissed. BARMAN'S DENTAL.

.James Carroll Carroll denied that he told Ryder that he had added some water to the bottle of whisky. A five-gallon jar of water was never used in the bar. When the bottles came from the cellar they were old and capsuled. Witness never placed any water in the whisky.

Mr, McVeagh: You always got on all right with Air. Ryder up to the time you were dismissed?—Yes. Well, then, can yon suggest why you should be suddenly dismissed after three years' service?—No.

Mi*. Paterson: Mr. Ryder wanted to make a defence for himself in this case. Mr. Paterson then said he only desired a conviction on the charge where the liquor did not comply with the standard.

Defendant wlis then lined £5 Mini costs, a total of £lO 10s, the oilier charges being withdrawn.

FALSE LABEL ON BOTTLE

The. next case was against, Andrew lieggs, licensee of the Masonic hotel, JJevonport. He was charged with selling whisky in a bottle which had attached a false label purporting to indicate that the whisky was D.0.L., very old, special brand, and with using a bottle for sale without first destroying the label on it,

Mr. McVeagh, in this case, also admitted the case ami the analysis. When the health inspectors went to the hotel lsCggs was not present, and the inspectors asked for a bottle of D.C.L. ivhisky. This was placed on the counter. In some cases, said Mr. McVeagh, some licensees kept in the bar their own diluted samplcj ;is they were 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 m;is really Beggs' own bottle that the inspectors seized for (he purposes of the sample.

Mr Paterson said that the excuse was really aii ingenious one. If it had been lieggs' own buttle, should not the barman have said so? Anyway, the bottle had been well-lingered. Defendant was fined £5 and costs on one charge only, the other being with drawn, OTHER CASES. , The other cases dealt witli were) as follow : John Redly, licensee of the Royal hotel, was fined £3 for adulteration and U2 on each of two charires' of selliii" liquor under a misleading label. Michael Ready, licensee of the lirilnniiirt 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. H. A. .Moore, licensee of the 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 flic Albion hotel, was .fined £5 for adulteration, and E. Dervan, licensee of the Freeman's Bay hotel, was lined £2 for selling whisky under a misleading label.