LABELS ON BOTTLES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9790, 13 October 1917, Page 11

LABELS ON BOTTLES

OFFENCES AGAINST THE LICENSING ACT A NUMBER OF HOTELKEEPEiIS FINED. A number of licensees of hotels came before the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in answer to charges of having m their possession labels to bo placed on bottles, of liquor, such labels not complying with • tho Licensing Act. Inspector Marsack, who prosecuted on behalf of the police, said that Sergeant "Willcocks made an inspection of the labels used by a number of hotelkeepers when bottling draft spirits and wine. Section 209 of the Licensing Act, in providing 1 for the bottling ot draft wine and spirits, made it imperative that the words -“Bottled mNow Zealand”, must.be largely printed on the labels, also the name of the bottler. In a number of instances this provision of the Act had not been complied with, and in consequence tho offenders were summoned before the court. Timothy Joseph Carrig, licensee ol the Clyde. Quay Hotel, pleaded guilty to tho offence, and was fined £2O (the minimum fine), with costs. A similar fino was imposed in the ease against Louis • Benjamin O'B.rion, licensee - 01 the Masonic Hotel. In the case against Richard Dwyer,, licensee of the Empire Hotel, Mr M. Myers, who appeared for the defendant, said that the- labels found m the possession of his client had the words “Bottled in New Zealand” printed on them, but the licensee had omitted to add his name to,the label. Other labels were found in a cupboard. These hod not been used, nor was there any yf —‘of using them. These par..uuiar labels had been sent by the lirm from whom port wine had been purchased in bulk, and had been placed in a'cupboard. A fine of £2O, with costs, was entered against the defendant. The next case called was one against Francis Joseph Oakes, licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. Mr M. Myers, who entered a plea of guilty, submitted that the Act was framed to prevent draft liquor being sold under a misrepresentation. In tho case before tho court there was nc fraud or deception implied or intended, and he submitted that the provisions of tho Act had been substantially complied with. The defendant had the words “Bottled in New Zealand ' printed on his labels and also the name the hotel, but not his own name. Possibly a technical offence had ■ oeen committed, as the indication was plain when the liquor had been bottled and by whom. Counsel suggested that the case was one which the court might treat as trivial, and dismiss it. Tho magistrate said bo could not comply with the suggestion made by Mr Myers. ,A breach, of the law hadboeu committed, and he had no alternative'- but'to' convict. The minimum penalty of £2O, with coats, would be imposed. Mr Myers said that an application would bo made to the Minister for Justice for a refund of the fine. He quite understood the magistrate’s position, and asked the court to support the yefund. Mr McCarthy replied that he dm not know whether ho would do as desired, but it was qtfito evident that aU the offences had been committed through ignorance. Florence May Paulsen, for whom Mr Gill appeared, stated that she was licensee of tho Carlton Hotel, and the only labels she need were those I supplied by Ballin and Co., of Christchurch, from whom she bought her port wine. Mr Gill asked that .the case be dismissed, as there tvas no intent to defraud or deceive. Mr McCarthy said a penalty had been fixed, and he must impose it. A magistrate had got into trouble, he stated, for not imposing a fine m a similar case. The defendant was hned I £2O, with costs. Mr Gill: “In that case it did not matter how innocently or justly a person may have acted lie would have to be fined.” Edward Joseph Stuart (Mr W. F. O’Leary), licensee of the Imperial Hotel, was also fined £2O, with costs. The cases brought against Samuel Gilmer, licensee of the Royal Oak Hotel, and Philip Lucas Firth, licensee of the Cambridge Hotel, were somewhat different to those of the other hotelkeepers. The defendants were charged with being in possession ot bottles with labels on them; and with making use of the bottles without destroying the original label, Mr A. Gray, K.C-, with him Mr F. Ward, who appeared for Samuel Gilmer, said there was not the slightest suggestion that the defendant intended to deceive in any way. The facts were that tho cellarman at the Royal Oak filled bottles of whisky to supply tho requirements of the bars fit the hotel. In doing so he defaced the original labels on tho bottles, but did not completely destroy them, as was required by the Act. Sergeant Willcocks, in giving evidence, stated that Mr Gilmer would not, if ho knew, tolerate for one moment any broach of tho Act being committed by ono of his servants. A fino of £2O was entered against tho defendant, as was done in the Similar case against Philip Lucas Firth, for whom Mr Myers appeared. In answer to counsel the magistrate said he was satisfied there was no attempt to defraud, nor was a person likely to be deceived hy the labels on tho bottles.