WHAT'S YOURS?

NZ Truth, Issue 1189, 13 September 1928, Page 5

WHAT'S YOURS?

draught Beer By Any

Other Name

(BVom "N.Z. Truth's" Auckland Rep.> It is said fchat you can't fool all the public all the. time. Andrew Beggs, late licensee of the Masonio Hotel, Devonport, found this put to the tune of £150 when he • was convicted on three charges of ' selling . draught beer for bottled /beer.---'.- ■ , \ HOW long some of the public have been fooled . some of the time is not known, but ho doubt many patrons of the Masonic Hotel are now wondering just what/ they have been drinking when buying bottles of a w<ell-knawn .beer. All brands were the same at that hotel, but customers paid a higher prioe' for draught variety just to , see it- dispensed m bottles. / One day, however, there entered Beers's hotel three men who called for bottled beer; they were served from the - bottled store of draught. It was the licensee's unluoky day. The customers were inspectors' — and they did not lose any time before inspecting. It was all the same brand^of beer, but not that which corresponded with any of the labels. \ The inspectors made a job of it; they tested three bottles of each brand before forming their collective opinion. ,'■■ ' .The tops of the bottles were, like the beer, uniform. They were all plain and had evidently been stamped on 'by the same machine which had ■tamped tops on the bottles sold under the licensee's name. That was not the only; feature touched on by Lawyer Hubble, who prosecuted, for he also mentioned to Magistrate Levien that defendant had twice >beeri convicted. On July 16, 1926, he had been convicted for selling whisky not true to label, while on May 25, 1928, he had been convicted for putting case brandy m; other bottles. ■'.-•-. There was a handsome profit m this business, Bald Lawyer Hubble, and it was fairly hard to prove., - Lawyer McVeagh appeared for Beggs arid entered a plea of guilty. Defendant had now sold the hotel, he said. It was a -"free house" and defendant was at liberty' to sell bottled, beer from draught. Never on, any occasion, had he t>ot r tied the beer himself; The young man who did the work had said that he . had • been instructed to remove the labels before using the bottles; m the rush of business, he might have neglected to do so. ; The magistrate said that if there was a machine on the premises there was a great temptation for the owner to use it for illegal purposes. In the event of a mistake being made, then the principal was responsible. He would have been Inclined toiglye weight to that suggestion if It had not been shown that defendant had been convicted on previous charges. The Act allowed for fines from £20 to fi-200. It had been said that defendant was going out of business. Counsel: "He has gone out." His. worship: "Yes, but he may be able to start elsewhere." ■ . - ' : Defendant was -fined £00 on each jpt the three charges, .with costs imuntinjs tA JW/ia/a, . . ;