LICENSEE PROSECUTED

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1930, Page 15

LICENSEE PROSECUTED

LIQUOR MOT UP TO STANDARD

MISTAKE BY BAR ATTENDANT.

BREACH OF STRICT INSTRUCTION.

As a result of the analysis of a sample of brandy procured from the Inglewood Hotel the licensee, Airs. Grace Stevens, was charged at New Plymouth on Saturday with selling liquor not in accordance with the Hennessey’s threestar label on the bottle, with using. a bottle so 'labelled for bottling liquor for sale without destroying the label, and with selling the inspector of the Health Department an article of adulterated food without informing him of the nature of the adulteration. Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., reserved his decision.

The hearing of the case had been commenced at Inglewood when Inspector- Gardiner gave" evidence that, accompanied by Inspector Swindells, he ■visited the bar and took a sample from one of the bottles on the shelves. There was no mark on the bottle showing the label had been cancelled, he said. On Saturday Air. T. P. Anderson acting for the Health Department, said that one of the charges was laid under the Licensing Act and the others under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. ’ He submitted prima facie' cases had been made out on each of the three charges and that the onus lay on the other side to disprove them. z

. .On behalf of. Mte.'.Stevens Air., R. Hi Quilliam admitted the defence had something to answer the charges under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, but said a complete answer was available. Regarding the licensing charge he submitted a case had not been made out. All. that had ; been shown was that a Hennessey three-star brandy bottle contained some liquor of quality below standard. There 'was no evidence that the liquor had been bottled by Mrs. Stevens. '

, Mr. Anderson.urged: that it.had .been proved the liquor was not Hennessey's brandy. Numerous cases, he ed there was sufficient evidence of bote tling. Counsel citedr.judgments, to show •that there cdtildlbe no -question ?bf establishing guilty; knowledge in: this case —the offence, was absolutely prohibiiedi

COULD NOT- BE HELD TO BOTTLE

Mr. Quilliam argued that if Airs, Stevens bought a bottle of inferior brandy it could nof be held that it-had been bottled by her. The prosecution l . had completely failed'to'‘show.an.,active act of bottling.. Undqr 'the Sale .of Foods and Drugs Act she.,was charged with keeping- inferior liquor for ealer she could not be convicted twice for the same offence '.and that, in , effect, ,was what the prosecution asked when ( it' asked for a cbiiyiction bn tho A'et ’eh.arge. f 1 Counsel’ sdkf he would/aji-? preciate a... decision of the court,on tha,i phase of the question at that stage. ‘ ;. ; Mf. tliftt; before deciding tlie ; point he 1 would' like, the' opportunity? of; feadiiig the: cases quot.ed, .. ~ . ■■, j ’ -Mr. ■ Quilliaih ’said it ; Was ;adiiiitted' tjie? liquor was , ■ three-star brandy and that it Was sold,' but. denied that Airs.. Sfeve»s?.wa&’re-; 'sponsible. ’Mrs.' Stevens had been ,ai for .12 years, and had, no pre-: : viqus; convictipns.. ;She- 'was'. a 'strict licehbee 'and the' reports, 'qn\her t hotels: had-.'.bhepf: excellent.': ? . ? '. . ! ' She, herself,attended'.to. the itockingi "of Xhe -bar kept - the. .keys .bf-rthe,; I She appreciated.itiib?danger of selling draught: spirit's and therefore bbught none. However, she. could not., be in'the bar all the timq herself, so' she employedcFbafik Julian, an ekperi-? enced barman, who had/ndt had a con-' viction recorded against him. : At the time of the inspectofb visit a young fellow named Bound was employed as a porter and to assist in the bar.' Up till then he was never in the bar. The sample was taken on a Friday. On the Thursday Julian took his half--holiday.' 'Mrs. Stevens was in bed ill, but by this time it was thought safe to 'leave'Bound in charge of the bar for the afternoon. He had always been given strict instructions not to sell spirits not in accordance with label. ~ The next day, when Julian was again in the bar, the inspector called and bought the sample of-brandy. No suspicions were felt regarding the result of the analysis to be made and when Airs. Stevens was notified of it she was at a loss to account for the matter. It was only later that she thought of Bound, who had in the meantime left her employ.' THE MYSTERY EXPLAINED.

'Bound was 1 questioned and tb". explain /that towards the end, of the Thursday afternoon he- was in the ' bar alone. z He noticed that ;> the large bottle of’ ./Hennessey’s three-star brandy jriyerted. '-over the ■'measure, or “bowser,’’ was-, almost empty. He tqbk an' unopened pint, bottle from the shelf. Pulling dotrh 'tip paper wrapping it certain distance' Ke saw .thei three-star sign on the bottle, and thinking it was Hennessey’s he emptied the-contents into the larger bottle. Actually the small bottle contained another brand' of three-star brandy, the constituents of which were/ not of quite the same quality or maturity ,as Hennessey’s. Counsel pointed out that there was no suggestion of water adulteration. Bound had admitted to him’that he was aware he should on no account have mixed the ..liquors, Mrs. Stevens' being very strict on this point. He could not give a definite reason why he did. it, but whether he merely’acted as a busybody, or in the belief that he was helping Mrs. Stevens, the fact remained that it was he who interfered with the bottle. Unfortunately, when having heard of the inspector’s purchase he saw that the sample was taken from the bottle he had filled lie said nothing.

Mrs. Stevens in evidence said she had no knowledge of .the interference with the lt was contrary to her instructions. Gross examined she said that at the time she might have had two dr three cases of Hennessey’s three-star brandy in stock. Bottles were never refilled. Bound did something that had never been done at the hotel before. '

Frank Julian said the bottle was inverted on the “bowser” when the, inspector purchased-the. sample. He would' swear it was not the practice to refill labelled bottles. Bound had sometimes assisted him, but was seldom .in the bar alone. . ...

To Mr, Anderson: There was about one nip. left in the bottle bn Thursday at midday.- When-lie returned on. Friday afternoon it was half-full. This did not strike him as peculiar. It was customary to destroy the lable.ae soon as a bottle was empty. . George Bound said that while in- the bar on. Thursday afternoon he noticed the big Hennessey bottle was nearly empty so he pulled down the paper wrapping on a pint bottle and saw the three stars. From this he filled the bigger-bottle. He knew he was nor supposed to do that, as Mrs. Stevens’ instructions were strict that spirits were to be sold'only to label. When he heard of-the. inspectors’ visit he still thought there was nothing much wrong, as he believed lift, pint bottle was Hennessey’s.

He left Mrs. Stevens’ employment about that time. Later Mrs. Stevens got ip touch with him. ’ He had filled th© bottle because there was no more than a nip left and the pint bottle would not fit on the ‘bowser.” Mrs. Stevens had the key of the-store'room,. so he ’ could hot have got’another mg bottle. ■/ .... ' . To Mr. Anderson: Mrs. Steven? had told him many times not to refill botr. ties. He had used all the contents of the pint bottle and had thrown it into the locker. He was positive the boftle. from which the sample was taken was on the “bowser.” “I would like to call Mr. Swiaddls cn the point,” said Mr. Anderson. “I am quite indifferent,” said Mr., Quilliam. . . Inspector Swindells, recalled, said he remembered seeing Gardiner take a bottle off the shelves. ~ 1