TWO MEN FINED £l0 EACH

Taranaki Daily News, 10 March 1932, Page 11

TWO MEN FINED £l0 EACH

WINE-MAKERS PROSECUTED “OVER-PERSUADED” AT. NIGHT. 'POLICEMAN PROCURES LIQUOR. Breaches of conditions governing their wine-makers’ licenses were responsible for fines of £lO and 10s costs each being inflicted yesterday upon Stanley Carlyon and Thomas W. Collins. The prosecutions arose out of the purchase of liquor from them by Constable Hodge at New Plymouth on the evening of February 15. Both Carlyon and Collins were fined for selling wine in quantities o: less than two gallons. For selling at a time when licensed premises were directed to ■be closed they were convicted and discharged without costs, while a similar course was adopted by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., on the charge alleging that the bottles sold by Carlyon were not labelled with his name and address. Both men admitted their guilt. It was 8.30 p.m. when Constable Hodge, acting on instructions, called on Carlyon and was supplied with liquor, said Inspector Rawle. The bottles were not labelled. Nothing was previously known against Carlyon, who had not offended during the two years he had held a license. “The object of bringing these cases,” proceeded the inspector, “is to warn wine licensees of their responsibilities —that they cannot sell after hours, in quantities of less than two gallons, or in bottles without labels. It is particularly desirable that these things should be impressed on them now that the dancing season is approaching.”

Counsel thanked Mr. Rawle for tlfe fair way in which lie had stated the fax?ts. As the offences all arose out of the one set of circumstances counsel suggested they should be treated as one. Carlyon had been quite .rank about the matter. Unfortunately he had allowed himself to be over-per-suaded. He was sorry for what nad occurred,. but assured the court that he now realised his responsibilities and appreciated the difficult position in which he had placed himself. “It is just as well that -wine-makers should appreciate that, for any breach of the. terms of their licenses they are liable to a fine of £100,” said the magistrate. “That indicates the serious view the Legislature takes of this kind of offence. A man is given a license to manufacture a limited quantity of wine and to sell it in quantities of not less than two gallons at one time. He is not to sell it in bottles not labelled with his name and address, or- to sell it after hours. For an infraction of any of these terms he may be fined an amount up to £1100.” Mf. Tate pointed out that these licenses were granted annually anfl that if the holders did not observe the law it might mean that renewals would be refused.

Counsel: I have pointed that out to Carlyon, and, in addition, that his license may be cancelled even for one of the present offences. The magistrate said it was in the wine-makers’ own hands whether they took the warning. But even regarded as a warning, it was difficult to make the fine anything but a substantial amount for an offence bearing a maximum penalty of £lOO. After all, £lO was only one-tenth of £lOO. A 'bottle of damson wine and another of blackberry wine were procured from Collins in Fulford Street when the constable called on him at 9.10 p.m., said Mr. Rawle. The price paid was < 6d. In Collins’ case the bottles were labelled. His explanation was that his unemployed son and his wife had come to live with him, and, requiring money, he had been weak enough to supply the liquor. Nothing else was known againsx him by the police. That was a fair statement of the position, said Collins. He had allowed himself to be over-persuaded. Luring 60 years the police had never had occasion to draw his attention to any breach of a by-law, or to a statutory offence.