EXTRAORDINARY WHISKY CASE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1035, 6 January 1910, Page 22

EXTRAORDINARY WHISKY CASE.

ACTION BY HOME DISTILLERY FIRM. That was a most extraordinary action which has just been heard at Home by Mr. Justice Warrington, in the Chancery Division. It was brought py Messrs. H. B. W. and G. H. Moor\Jiead, whisky distillers, of Newry, in the North of Ireland, to restrain Mrs. Catherine Allen, licensee of the Ynysmeurig Hotel, Abercynon, from the alleged passing off of Irish whisky known as Hand-in-Hand for plaintiff’s Thomson’s Irish whisky. The defendant denied the alleged passing-off. Amongst the witnesses was Mrs. Elizabeth Price, of Cardiff, who said that acting on the instructions of plaintiff’s solicitors, she went to defendant’s hotel and asked the barmaid for a bottle of: Thomson’s Irish whisky. The barmaid took a bottle from the shelf, wrapped it up, and handed it to her.

Witness asked, “Are you quite sure it is Thomson’s whisky?” and the barmaid replied, “Quite sure.” On removing the wrapper witness found it was Hand-in-Hand whisky. The defendant’s two barmaids, Miss Lloyd and Miss Jones, were in court, and were asked to stand up, but witness was unable to say which of them had served her. Miss Sarah Ann Lloyd said that since she had been a barmaid at defendant’s house she had never seen any of Thomson’s Irish whisky there. She remembered Mrs. Price coming to the bar on July 15th and asking for a bottle of Thomson’s Irish whisky. Witness said they had no Thomson’s but Hand-in-Hand, a very good Irish whisky. Mrs. Price asked if she could put some in a bottle and put a Thomson’s label on,, so that her husband ■might think it was Thomson’s. Witness replied that she could not put such a label on. Mrs. Treherne came in, and she also told Mrs. Price that they had no Thomson’s labels or whisky, as they did not stock it. Mrs Price then said she would take the Hand-in-Hand. Miss Jones also came into the bar during the conversation. On July 17th Mrs. Lewis called, and asked for a large bottle of Thomson’s Witness said they had no Thomson’s, and Mrs. Lewis agreed to take Hand-’in-Hand. Mr. Terrell: Have you ever at this house sold Hand-in-Hand or any other whisky as, and for, Thomson’s? —No. Cross-examined, witness said she thought it a little odd that Mrs. Price should ask her to put a Thomson’s label on, and she told several people about it. Mrs. Treherne said she was living with her husband, Mr. Edgar Treherne, jun., at defendant’s hotel. She saw Mrs. Price at the house on July 15th in conversation with the last witness. She heard Miss Lloyd inform Mrs. Price that they had not got Thomson’s Irish whisky, but only Hand-in-Hand. Cross-examined, witness denied that the barmaid had instructions to push the sale of Hand-in-Hand whisky, but admitted that they sold more of that than of any other whisky. Mrs. Price knew exactly the whisky she was supplied with. Mrs. Allen said that the hotel belonged to her father, and that she lived with her husband at Treforest. She helped in the hotel occasionally. She remembered seeing Mr. Lewis and Mr. Mobre at the hotel on July 19th. Mr. Lewis asked for a bottle of Thomson’s whisky, and witness heard Miss Lloyd, the barmaid, tell him they did not keep it, but had Hand-in-Hand. Mr. Lewis examined the label and said that would do, and asked her to wrap it up. He paid her 4 shillings, and observed: “It is Thomson’s.” Miss Lloyd replied, “No, it is Hand-in-Hand.” Cross-examined by Mr.' Montague Lush, K.C.: Do you mean to tell the Court that Mr. Lewis had examined the bottle, and knowing it was not Thomson’s, said to the barmaid, “It is Thomson’s?” —Yes. Mr. Justice Warrington, in giving judgment, said the plaintiffs charged the defendant, who was the propriettor of the Ynsymeurig Hotel, with having, on several occasions, sold whisky also manufactured in the same town in the North of Ireland where they carried on business —Newry—as and for their whisky. It was not a question of get-up or anything of that sort. v The question was simply one of fact —had or had not the barmaids in the defendant’s bar, when asked for Thomson’s Irish whisky, fraudulently supplied Hand-in-Hand instead. The qquestion depended upon the opinion the Court might form of what the witnesses said in the box, their demeanour, and other cirucmstances

winch, the Court observed. He had watched the witnesses, and had listened to what had been said by them with all the attention he could give to it, and he had now to deal- with the matter as a jury. It was not a bit of use his analysing the details of the evidence, or saying how one piece pressed him one way and how another piece pressed him another. He should simply do as a jury would do. He found as a fact that the defendant had not, by her servants or otherwise, passed off Hand-in-Hand whisky as Thomson’s, and he therefore gave judgment for the defendant, with costs of the

action.