THE BREWERS’ HOLD.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 85, 18 April 1901, Page 4

THE BREWERS’ HOLD.

, “ TIED ” HOUSES. [BY TELEORATH —PKESS ASSOCIATION.] Auckland, last night. The Chief Justice’s decision in the case of Hancock and Co. v. Ryan was given to-day. The defence was—first, that the true rent was £l6 17s per week, not £3O, and secondly, that as the beer supplied by plaintiffs during certain months was bad, defendant was discharged from the obligation to purchase exclusively from the plaintiff company', and that he should be held to have complied with the proviso. His Honor held that the proviso in question did not fail within terms of section 35, subsection 1, inserted in the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act 1895, to abolish “ tied ” houses. He was, however, compelled to say, though, that he thought the spirit of the statute had been ingeniously evaded. He must hold the letter of the law had not been violated. As for the defence that bad beer was supplied, the case could not be brought within that class of case which enabled a purchaser to refuse other goods because certain goods supplied previously had been bad, and the finding of the jury that bad beer was supplied during certain months did not warrant such being doue. He could not say the supply of bad beer in the months mentioned by the jury had enabled the Court to declare that defendant had fulfilled the terms of the proviso of the lease. Both defences therefore failed. Judgment was given for the difference between the amount paid into Court and the amount claimed, viz., £249 17s and costs.