DRAUGHT DIQUOR AND LABELS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 16, 13 October 1917, Page 3

DRAUGHT DIQUOR AND LABELS

PUBLICANS IN COURT

\ A number of publicans were proceeded against by the police in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, belore Mr. S. h. M'Warthy, S.M., iu respect (o tlie labels used in connection with draught liquora bottled on licensed premises. .Francis J. (Jakes, of tlie Duko of Edinburgh Hotel, for whom Mr. M. Myers appeared, was charged with having in Ins possession bottle labels not having the name of the bottler on them. It was stated in evidence that the labels contained the words "Bottled in New Zealand," as required by tho Act. and it was shown on the label that the bottling was done in the Edinburgh Hotel. There was no likelihood of anyone beiujf'deceivcd by the label. Mr. Myers contended that the label was a substantial compliance with the Act, and consequently there was no offence. If it was held that there wa6 an offence it was purely a technical breach of tho law.

The' Magistrate said the law required that the words "Bottled in New Zealand," also the name of the bottler, should bo legibly printed on the label. In. this case the name of tlie bottler was not so printed. Counsel had asked that the matter should be treated as" a technical breach, but the Magistrate held that he had no option in the matter and must record a conviction. At the same time ho was satisfied there was ro attempt at fraud, and no possibility of anyone being deceived by the label. Defendant was fined .£2o,' the minimum fine, and costs. Mr. Myers intimated that an application would be made for a refund of the fine, and a6ked if his Worship would recommend it. Mr. M'Carthy stated that if application were n,ode to him he would give the facts. Richard Dwycr (Empiro Hotel), for whom Mr. Myers also appeared, was similarly charged. This case was practically the same as the previous one, consequently the defendant pleaded gualty and was fined and costs. A Tefund is to be applied for. Louis B. O'Brien (Masonic Hotel) also pleaded guilty through his solicitor, Mr. M.' Mvers, to a similar oharge, and was fined "i£2o and costs. In thi6 case also a refund was, applied for.. ' ■'■ Timothy J. Carrig, of the Clyde Quay Hotel, pleaded guilty to having in bis possession bottle labels not having punted thereon "Bottled in Now Zealand,. and,, the name.of tho bottler. A fi.no .cf 120 and costs was imposed. Florence May Poulsen, of the Carlton Hotel, similarly charged, pleaded guilty under oxteiiuating circumstances. Mr. Gill, who appeared for the defendant, stated that she bottled'port wine which she imported, and the labols were sent out with tho wine. She had no idea she was breaking the law. Tho Magistrate said he had no option, and must convict. A fine of #20 and costs was indicted. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for Edward J. Stuart, of the Imperial Hotel, similarly charged, said the defendant had made use of the labels left him by his predecessor, and presumed he was acting within the "law. Defendant was fined £PJ\ and costs. Samuel Gilmer, of the Royal Oak Hotel, tor whom Mr. A. Gray, K.C., appeared, was charged with having in his possession bottles with labels on, and making use of them without destroying the original label. It was stated "i evidence that tho defendant imported Bella whisky in bulk, and used the empty whisky bottles from the bars, which were filled with the draught whisky, the original labels being defaced'with a penknife The ccllnrman. who had been m the employ of. Mr. Gilmer for Itl years said it was his practice to collect the empty whisky bottles from the. bars, fill them with draught and return them to the bars to be usea in filling up the'decanters or for sale; to .customers who wanted draught whisky; Ho always scraped the original labels with a penknife to deface them. The refilled bottles were kept under the rounter, and onlv sold as containing draught whisky. Mr Grav said if there was not a strict compliance .with the law there -wm a substantial compliance. There was no fraud; for tho labels were defaced though not destroyed. The M«g«tr*te agreed there was no attempt at fra Ml, but held that he had no option in the matter, and. inflicted a fine o £2Cand costs. A refund is to be applied for. Philip Lucas Firth, for whom Mr. M. Mvers appeared, was similarly charged. The facts in the case were very n.uch on all fours with those in th.; Royal Oak case Firtn was fined ■*-» ana costs, and Mr. Myers intimated, that a refund of the fine.would be applied for.