A BOTTLE AND ITS CONTENTS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, 22 August 1912, Page 25

A BOTTLE AND ITS CONTENTS.

A charge of applying a false trade description to the contents of a bottle labelled “John Walker and, Sons’ Old Highland Whisky” was. preferred against Frederick Dobson, licensee of the Masonic Hotel at the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, before Mr W. G. Riddell, S. M. The information was laid under section 82 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1908. Evidence was given by Sergeant Fitzgerald that on April 24th, in company with Constable Sleeth, he visited defendant's hotel and purchased five samples of liquor, including the sample under notice. Defendant stated that he had no cases of Walker’s whisky open, but on looking through the bar witness found the bottle labelled Walker’s whisky (produced). Dobson said he would not sell that sample as Walker’s case whisky . However witness sealed the bottle up and.bought it. Dobson said “I don’t sell' that'as Walker’s whisky, r sell it as draught.”

Constable Sleeth, who tendered similar evidence, stated that he afterwards visited the premises of Mr Kernot, wine and spirit merchant, Customhouse Quay, and procured a bottle of Walker’s whisky.

Alexander Sim, attorney, for Mr Kernot, said that the label on the bottle obtained from defendant represented that the bottle contained Walker’s whisky.

Dr. Maclaurin, Dominion analyst, to whom the two samples of whisky were handed for analysis, stated that the contents of both bottles were not alike, although there was a similarity. If the wholesale bottle contained Walker’s case whisky then the contents of the retail bottle would not be genuine.

Mr A. Gray, who appeared for defendant, submitted that Dobson applied no description to the whisky which was untrue. He told the police that he had no case, but draught whisky. On this ground the information should be dismissed.* Inspector Ellison said complaints had been made that a great deal of illicit bottling was indulged in in the country, and it was to see whether this practice could be stopped under the law as it stands that the informations against defendant were laid. Decision was reserved.