Important Decision.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1713, 20 May 1886, Page 2

Important Decision.

In the Waiiganui B.M Court on Tuesday, J. sp; Watt, brewer, was charred under section 159 of the Licensing Act, 1881, with selling two dozen of beer m bottles, without having obtained a wholesale license. Counsel for the defence urged that the Beer Duty Act, 1880, did not.enferce any other lictuse buc a brewrerV licence and an excise duty of 3d per gallon. He considered that the tfenetal provisions of the Llcensjug Act could not abrogate the spfcial regulations of the Beer Act, and held that a brewer had a right to sell hifl beet 1 m any .he chose, so long as the quantity was not under two \ gallons. His Worship gave judgment as follows :— The facts essential to this case are not disputed, and it seems to me to be scarcely necessary to do more than state the conclusion I have arrived at after carefully considering tho law on the matter. My decision is ai follows :— (1) I hold that a brewer's license under "The B«er Duty Act 1880," is sufficient authority for a brewer or his agent to sell beer, made at his brewery, I m any part of the colony, so long as he sells it m quantities not leas than two I gallons, m casks of such sizes us are prescribed m the regulations made m the 81st seotion of the said act. (His Worship read the section referred to, And aifto tha regulations contained m i Gazette No 96, October, 1880. as to the sizes prescribed for cask's.) (2) In the case before me, the defendant who is a brewer, soldi; 12 bottles of beer contain, ing two gallons. The regulations do riot provide for the sale of beer m bottles. (3) I am of opinion that a brower'B license does t.ot cover such a ■ale, and that the defendant Has tint a tfßfhscuVder/"The Licensing Act, 1981." I oonuidor he was not licensed to sell beer m bottles, that he has brought himself within the provisions of section 159 of the Licensing Act, 18SI, and he is liable to a penalty. His Worship referred to the decision given by His Hop or Mr Justice Richmond, given m the appeal case Siddle v. Beach, m which he decided that a brewer had no power to sell beer except out of casks duly stamped. In that case the beer had been sold out of a duly stamped 18 gallon cask, but such a sale was not provided for under the Act. His Worship said he was perfectly satisfied that Mr Watt had not the slightest intention to infringe the Act. It seemed he had some color for the action he took, and therefore, he (His Worship) thought a nominal flue would be sufficient. Fined 10fl, and costß 7s, with solicitor's fee £2 2s.