ELLING GOODS WITH A FALSE DESCRIPTION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 609, 25 September 1902, Page 21

ELLING GOODS WITH A FALSE DESCRIPTION.

Mrs Hose, licensee of the Bell Tavern, Middlesex-street, Aidgate, answered three summonses at the U orship-street Police Court recently for having exposed for sale goods to which a false trade description was applied, and Arthur Pemniicard, barman in her employment, was also summoned for selling the goods with the false trade description, contrary to the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. Mr Bodkin, barrister, prosecuted, and Mr Margerts, solicitor, defended. Counsel said •that the second sub-section of section 2 of the Act dealt with exposure, possession and sale of goods. ' The prosecutors in this case were Messrs Martell, brandy merchants, of France, one of the main branches of whose business was the production of brandy in bottle of three grades, known as one-star, two-star, and three-star. The brandies of Messrs Martell were only exported in bottles labelled as described, and could not even be obtained in London otherwise. An ex-de-tective-inspector in December last visited the Bell, and a person who called for MartelFs “ three-star ” was served from a bottle bearing the label and three stats of the prosecutor. On asking for a larger ' quantity to take away, a fresh bottle was opened, and proved to be an original bottle, and of proper quality. A second . attempt in May was made with a like result —a fresh bottle being opened when a quantity to. take away was asked, for. This, counsel said, he should contend

showed that either the brandy supplied by liquer glass was not Martell’s brandy, or,' if it had a substratum of Martell in it, it was of inferior quality—one-star instead of three-star. On June 11 the officer employed—ex-Detective-lnspector Richards —went’ with three others, as customers, and called for drinks of three-star brandy. The amount supplied was only liqueur /quantity, and it was suggested that double “go’s” should be had. They were furnished from a bottle taken from ta shelf. A quartern of Martell’s three- , star was then asked for, and the barman went away to "get a fresh bottle. During his absence the main portion of the brandy already supplied was emptied into a bottle which had been provided for the purpose. The brandy satisfied the prosecutors that a fraud was systematically practised on the public at the house in question. Evidence was adduced bearing •out . counsel’s opening statement. The bottle containing the sample was produced and traced from the hands of the , witness Richards, to the office of the ' solicitors, and there submitted eight days afterwards to Mr Gordon Clarke, of the firm' of the London agents of Messrs Martell. Mr Clarke’s evidence was that it was not Martell’s brandy, certainly not “three-star.” He admitted he. only went by taste and smell, and the : prosecution admitted that the sample had not been analysed. Mr Dowding, wine and spirit merchant, who followed, would not go the length of saying with the previouswitness that the sample was not grape spirit at all. On the close of the prosecution, Mr Margetts' said Mrs Rosq did not live upon the premises, having a manager. What had .happened previous to the early part of June was- the act of that manager and a harman, both of whom were dismissed. The defendant Pemmicard had not been more than five days in the service when the witnesses got the sample in question. He had served the brandy from bottles as he found 1 them, and, doubtless, if wrong, it was .the act of the former manager or barman. He commented upon the fact that there had been no analysis of the sample obtained. After evidence for the defence as to the change of servants, the Magistrate said he should convict ( only Mrs Rose of the selling, exonerating Pemmicard as having acted innocently." He thought it w a s a mean form of fraud, and he imposed a fine of £2o’ with 19 guineas costs, or three months.