The Adulteration Act.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 137, 9 May 1884, Page 2

The Adulteration Act.

Important Cass.

At the Masterton R.M. Court on Monday, before Mr Wardell, R.M., the following case was heard as reported m the Wairarapa Daily : — Jospph Wilson was charged under section 7, of the Adulteration Act with selling adulterated liquor. Sergeant McArdle deposed, that on the 7th of .March last he bought a pint of whisky from the defendant for analysis, which he sealed m the presence of Mi s Wilson, who supplied it. On April 7he sent the sample, with others, to Wellington, and subsequently received an analysis from Wellington. Mr Beard asked to see the analysis before it was put into Court. The Serjeant objected to Mr Beard seeing it till the Court had inspected it. The Court ruled that Mr Beard had a right to see it m the first instance. Mr Beard, after inspecting it, submitted that the document could not be pbb m as evidence, as the charge was not one of adulter-ating an article but of selliug an adulterated article. The Court held that the document was admissible. Sergeant McArdle deposed, that the certificate, signed, by the official analyse showed that the whisky m question was 28-60 per cent, below proof. (To Mr Beard). He purchased three samples of spirits from Air Wilson, the information was only laid with respect to one of them. He supplied the bottles himself which were labelled. He called at Mrs Wilson's and Mr Owen's. He took No 2 bottles to Mrs Wilson's. He did not see a notice m the bar to the effect thai liquors were mixed with tvater. He would not swear that the notice produced wa's not m the tar. Had he seen such a notice he would not have taken a sample from the bar. He did not remember going into the Commercial roono. Did not s:e the notice hanging above the trap door m the bar. He looked to see if a notice of the character was up. He could swear it was not m a prominent place m the bar. Mr Beard said that as a matter of fact two notices were hanging above the bar. The Court : That means a double supply of water 1 Mr Beard said his defence was the following notice : — " All spirit 3 sold here mixed with water." The Court : How do you bring the knowledge of that notice home 1 Mr Beard submitted that any person with his eyes open could see such a notice. He was piepared to show by the evidence of forty witnesses that two such notices has! been m prominent positions m the bar since Mr Wilson held the premises. The Court said the Act gave a statutory right to reduce by water to extent of 25 decrees, but m this instance the limit, had been exceeded. In this case, too, the notice had not been brought home to Sergeant MeArdle, and could not l-e admitted. Mr Beard .submitted that his client's case should not be prejudiced !y the Sergeant's disregard of a plain notice. The Court held that there wns no notice; that the purchaser should have been told that the liquor supplied was not of the statutory strength. Such a notice was only a lazy way of evading the declaration required by the statute. • Joseph Wil«on called for the defence deposed that he purchased whisky m Wellington which was charged on the account as being 7 degrees overproof. Whisky was never retailed overproof. He put to each gallon of whisky 2£ pints of water to reduce it to 15 degrees under proof. The notice produce 1 hung over the trap door m the bar, and a secoud one hung beside it. A third was hung m the commercial room. The notice produced had never been obscured or taken down, Mr Beard submitted that there was no proof of a fraudulent intent, and that the information must fail on this ground. The Cowrb held that the evidence supported a conviction, and that it waa its duty to convict. Now that a statutory standard was fixed, the only point it required to be satisfied m was that liquor was sold below the standard. If from negligence or ignorance spirits were sold below the standard, the vendor must suffer. The offence of adding water was not a serious one, and a small penalty of twenty shillings would meet the case. Mr Beard gave notice of appeal. Serjeant McArdle placed before the Court a list of the costs of the anal. sis amounting to £1< Is 4d, the principal item being- one of £2 for buggy hire. ' The Court refused to allow the spocial expenses.