NO LICENCE TO MAKE WINE

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIII, Issue 22491, 28 January 1943, Page 4

NO LICENCE TO MAKE WINE

27301 b Of Sugar Obtained Strong Comment By Magistrate OAMARU, January 27. “I cannot refrain from saying that it appears absurd that a person can obtain a quantity of 27301 b of sugar for the manufacture of wine when the applicant does not even hold a licence to make wine; even if she did it seems strange that such a quantity of sugar could reasonably be obtained.” The foregoing statement was made by the Magistrate, Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Oamaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon when convicting Doris Anna Schaffer on a charge of having manufactured wine for sale without being the holder of a wine-maker's licence.

Defendant, who was represented by Mr A. R. Tait, pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant T. I. McGregor, describing a visit to the defendant’s property at Tapui, said he discovered not fewer than 500 gallons of wine, which defendant said she had manufactured from mangolds and parsnips. A man named A. R. Willkie, who lived on the property, said they had a licence to make wine, and that the necessary sugar had been obtained through the food controller at Oamaru.

The police had checked up on this statement, finding that on November 12, 1942, defendant had applied for 9101bs of sugar and on December 9 for 18201bs of sugar, a total of 27301b5. Both applications had been granted.

Defendant did not have a licence to manufacture wine, although her father, prior to his death in 1936, had held one for many years. The defendant had applied for a licence, but it was not granted because she was a woman. Defendant had also admitted that she was making wine for sale to Ballin and Co., Ltd., Christchurch. She had sold wine to the value of £1560 to this firm in October, 1942. Evidence was given along the lines of the senior-sergeant’s statement of the case. Question of Sale For the defence, Mr Tait contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that the wine now being made was for sale. It was admitted that defendant was making wine, but not for sale. To the Magistrate, defendant said she had 20 bags of sugar left from the last consignment. The Magistrate said the Food Controller should be informed of the facts. “It will break the hearts of housewives to learn that sugar is going into wine when they can’t get sufficient for the manufacture of jam,” he added. In replying to a further question by the Magistrate, defendant said she made the wine to drink. She did not make it for sale. The Magistrate: Why should you, a private consumer, have that amount of sugar to make wine for your own consumption? Defendant did not reply. Senior-Sergeant McGregor said it was hardly likely that defendant would make 16 cases of wine for her own consumption. The Magistrate said the question he had to determine was whether the 500 gallons of wine had meen manufactured for sale. In a statement to the police, he said, the defendant had said she was making 500 gallons of wine for sale to Ballin and Co. in 12 months’ time, but she was not authorised to manufacture for sale. It was a question of fact within a very small compass. It would be absurd, however, to say that the 500 gallons of wine were for the private use of defendant.

Defendant was convicted. The Magistrate reserved the question of penalty so that he could take into consideration the forfeiture of the wine or otherwise, and the case was adjourned until the next sitting of the Court.