ADULTERATING LIQUOR.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 13 September 1880, Page 2

ADULTERATING LIQUOR.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning, before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M., a number of liotelkeepers were charged with having sold to Sergeant Bcatty liquor adulterated by the addition of water, as shown in the following analysis by Professor Black ; University Laboratory, Dunedin, 80th August, 1880. Inspector of Constabulary, Oamaru. Sir, —I have the honor to report on analysis of fifteen samples of * brandy delivered to me here oil the *loth instant at 1.30 p.m., by Sergeant Beatty. The samples were contained in bottles corked and sealed, and were opened in my presence. I transferred a portion of each sample into fresh clean bottles produced by Sergeant Beatty, and already labelled; and he removed the same after being corked and sealed in my presence. No. 1, Benjitmin Perry, Swan Hotel, Oamaru, 7 per cent, under proof. No. 2, Mathew Grant, Alliance Hotel, Oamaru, 17£ per cent, under proof. No. 3, Thomas Hannon, White Hart Hotel, Oamaru, 22 per cent, under proof. No. 4, Alexander Johnston, Commercial Hotel, Oainaru, 20 per cent, under proof. No. 6, William Maitland, Globe Hotel, Oamaru, 23J per cent, under proof. No. 6, Joseph Daniel Kett, Royal Hotel, Oamaru, 19 J- per cent, under proof. No. 7, James Markhaftir, Queen's Hotel, Oamaru, 6 per cent, under proof. No. 8, Alexander Gillespie, Star and Garter Hotel, Oamaru, 24 per cent, under proof. No. 9, John M'Kay, Junction Hotel, Oamaru. 18 per cent, .under proof. No. 10, J. G. H. Amos, Northern Hotel, Oamaru, 2G per cent, under proof. No. 11, Charles Dodge, Empire Hotel, Oamaru, 28 per cent, under proof. No. 12, William Gillespie, Criterion Hotel, Oamaru, 27 per cent, under proof. No. 13, William Morgan Southan, North Otago Hotel, Oamaru, 21 per cent, under proof. No. 14, Patrick Croft, Shamrock Hotel, Oamaru, 20 per cent, under proof. No. 15, George Newey, Imperial Hotel, Oamaru, 25 per cent, under proof. It is seen from the above results that all the samples are under proof. In every case water has been added since the liquid was distilled. The addition of water is amply proved by the 1 presence of notable quantities of iron salts and lime salts, which, without exception, each of these fifteen samples contains, They also contain appreciable quantities of sulphuric acid in combination wjth the lime and oxide of iron. They also all contain a little magnesia. The presence of these impurities may beaccounted for by the use q| ordinary undistilled Oamaru water for the purpose of diluting the brandies. lam aware that Oamaru water, coming through the limestone, does contain all the impurities that I hg,ve' detected in these samples. Be- | sides these inorganic impurities all the samples contain sugar and burnt sugar or molasses, which had been added to give color. They also all contain tannic acid, which probably is derived from the wood of the casks in which they have been imported. In my opinion the only tampering with these liquors is that of adding impure water to reduce them, and the amount of this dilution is given in the strength of the various samples in the tabular statement above.—l am, "&c., James G. Black, , "Colonial* Analyst. . The first oase called was that of Charles Dodge, of the Empire Hotel, who was charged with having, on the 9th August, sold to William Beatty as unadulterated a pint of brandy j which was then adulterated by having, mixed with it another substance, to wit water, in the proportion of 28 per cent., with intent fraudulently to increase its bulk.'

Inspector Thompson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the defendant. Sergeant Beatty, Inspector of weights and measures, gave evidence to the effect that, on the 9th of August, he went to the hotel of the defendant, and purchased a pint of brandy, telling the defendant that he intended sending it to Professor Black for analysis. ■ The brandy was the same as that sold over the counter. He corked the bottle up, sealed it, and gave it to Professor Black. In reply to Mr. O'Meagher, witness said he was not a teetotaler, and thereupon drank some of the brandy. He did not think 'it would be improper, for 'his stomach's sake, to add a little water to the liquor. He could not say if the liquor was sufficiently strong for those who go to public houses. He thought it would be better for some of them if it was all water. Mr. O'Meagher said that the defendant had been selected first as having the largest percentage of water in the liquor. He thought his Worship would, after consideration, come to the conclusion that the matter was not so serious after all. He said that the framers of the Act under which the case was brought had based it upon the English Act, but had left out one of its wisest provisions, and this was an injustice to the persons charged with adulteration. Under the English Act persons could only be mulcted when it had been shown that he had a guilty knowledge of the adulteration. Here such a provision was omitted from the Act, and a person was liable whether or not he had a guilty knowledge. He would, by scientific proofs, show that a capsuled bottle of Hennessy's One-star brandy was under proof, and that a capsuled bottle of the Associated brandy was also adulterated. These bottles had never been opened, and the sellers could not have adulterated the contents. Still they were liable under one Act, though it was evident that the liquor must have been adulterated before being bottled. This was a manifest injustice to the accused, and the sooner the Act was amended the better. According to the analysis of Professor Black, these liquors had simply been reduced by the addition of water, and every publican in Oamaru should obtain a certified copy of the report, frame it, and hang it Tip in his bar as evidence of the good quality of the liquors they sell. He then called the attention of the Bench to a case heard in the Dunedin Court in April last, and reported as follows : " Sale of Food and Drugs Act.—The Bench gave judgement to-day in the case of Charles Armstrong, which was heard in this Court on Saturday. Their decision was against Mr. Denniston on the points of law that he had raised. Professor Black stated that he had made an error in reading the columns of figures in his analysis. One hundred gallons of the brandy, as sold, contained 28 gallons of water and 72 gallons of proof spirit.—The Bench, upon hearing this correction, dismissed the case.—Mr. Denniston said there that was no fixed standard here. He was instructed that the English and Melbourne standards allowed 25 per cent, reduction.—The Bench said they were willing to take 25 per cent, as a proper standard, and considering the correction in Professor Black's evidence, the difference would only be 3 per cent, below what would be regarded as allowable. —At the request of Inspector Mallard, similar charges against Alfred T. Dunning, George M'Gavin, Francis M'Grath, George Nelson, and Donald Mathieson were withdrawn." He did not think it necessary to occupy the attention of his Worship any longer, but would ask Mr. Perry to make some experiments, and give the result to the Court. Mr. Perry then tested a bottle of Hennessy's one star brandy, and a bottle of the Associated Vineyard brandy. After having been sworn, he stated that he had had some experience in the use of Sikes' hydrometer, and had been using it for ten years. The bottles of liquor had been obtained from his cellar, and had not been opened. He found that the bottle of Hennessy's brandy was 14'5 under proof. The bottle of .Associated Vineyard brandy was 15 "0 under proof. He thought it necessary to reduce liquor, for if the publicans sold it at proof, the police would have a great deal more to do, as no ordinary man could stand three glasses of proof spirits. It was not the liquor that people sought so much as company. One man came into a hotel in company with others, and after he had " shouted," others would do so from a feeling of friendship, and so it went' round the whole of them. He mentioned the condition in which liquor usually left bond, and said that if it was sold in the condition in which it was received, these men would speedily become intoxicated, and the report would then go round that they had been poisoned by bad liquor. In other places, a standard was fixed of the strength at which liquor should be sold, and he thought it desirable that such a standard should be fixed here. Every publican reduced the strength of his liquor, but there was no fixed standard. What was required was the introduction of really good spirits into the Colony. At present, brandy could be bought of equal strength to Hennessy's best brandy, but really of very inferior quality. He then mentioned some of the prices of some classes of liquor. Mr. O'Meagher asked that, on the strength of the evidence just given, the case should be dismissed. He thought his Worship should intimate what standard of reduction he was willing to admit. Some standard was necessary, His Worship said that he was quite prepared to admit that, so far as the majority of those who took it were concerned, that the liquor should be reduced. But in the present case he must go upon the Act before him. The omission made in the New Zealand Act as compared with the Home Act was not so great a hardship as had been attempted to be shown by Mr. O'Meagher, because the hotelkeeper could under the Act make the declaration that his liquor was reduced by the addition of water. He supposed it was universally known that all bottled liquor was below proof, but in this case it had not been shown whether the liquor in question was bottled or bulk brandy. Mr. O'Meagher : It was bulk brandy, your Worship. His Worship said that it had been shown that bulk brandy could be obtained a little over proof, but in this case the adulteration had reduced the liquor to considerably below the condition of the ! bottled. He was willing to admit that the adulteration did not include any deleterious matter. He did not feel inclined to accept the standard fixed by the Dunedin Bench, because he thought the Bench would be going too far if it fixed any limit and supplied an omission of Parliament. He would, however,' accept 15 per cent, below proof as the standard of all cases that came beforo him. In this case he would inflict a small fine. Mr, O'Meagher asked if Inspector Thompson intended to proceed with the rest of the cases. Inspector Thompson said that he would proceed with all cases in which the liquor had been reduced below the standard fixed by his Worship, and withdraw the cases where the adulteration was under lo per cent." Mr. O'Meagher said he did not see the necessity for pressing the matter further. If any deleterious substance had been found in the liquor, he would say, "Go on to the bitter end," and suggest that the heaviest fine should be inflicted. His Worship said that this- was an offence within the wording of tfeo Act, and he must take some, oognisance of it. With regard to the two , cases where the adulteration did not amount to 15 per

cent., he might state that he would tatri no action. Inspector Thompson said the evidenco in all the cases would bo same as in the last. If the defendants would admit the offence, he would not press for heaw penalties. * Mr. O'Meagher said that the defendants had come into Court willing to admit that they had reduced their liquor by tha addition of water. After a little further discussion. His Worship said that as this was tha first time any cases of the kind that had been brought in Oamaru he would not inflict heavy penalties, but he was not inclined to dismiss the cases. Inspector Thompson suggested that each of the defendants should bo called and plead guilty, and the evidence already given accepted. J William Gillespie was then called and here a note was handed to Mr. O'Meagher who asked for half-an-hour to consult with his clients. There was evidently a . conflict of instructions, some being willing to plead guilty, and others not willing to do so. ° His Worship granted the adjournment. The cases against James Markham and Benjamin Perry were withdrawn. On the Court resuming, Mr. O'Meagher intimated that thoro were three cases to be defended. The following pleaded guilty, and were fined 5s each Mathew Grant, Thomas. Hannon, William Maitland, Joseph D. Kett, Alexander Gillespie, John M'Kay* George Amos, Patrick Croft, and Catherine Newey.

William Gillespie, of the Criterion Hotel, was then charged with having sold a pint of brandy to Sergeant Beatty adulterated by the addition of 27 porcent! of water. Inspector Thompson prosecuted, and Mr. O'Meagher defended. In his evidence, Sergeant Beatty statod that defendant had, when giving him tho brandy, to the best of his belief said " You will find very little brandy in Oamaru without water in it." In reply to Mr. O'Meagher, witness said he would not swear that defendant had not said, "You will find nothing in. it but water." He might have Said so. To the Bench : It was after he received the brandy that defendant alluded to the, water. To Mr. O'Meagher : He would swear that the defendant had not mentioned water until after he had stated for what purpose the brandy was being obtained. William Gillespie, defendant, deposed that when Sergeant Beatty asked for the brandy, witness asked which brandy ho wanted, Hennessy's bottled or bulk out of the decanter. The sergeant said tho brandy that was sold over the counter. Witness passed the decanter to him, saying " You will find nothing but water in it," or something to that effect. Ho was quite clear about making the remark, and thought it was after the sergeant read over the paper. To Inspector Thompson : Witness said he thought he told Sergeant Beatty that he would find nothing but water in it bofore he mentioned that the brandy was to be analysed. To Mr. O'Meagher : He,did say to Sergeant Beatty that there was a little water in the brandy. His Worship said that there was a little doubt as to the statement about the water, and he must dismiss the case. Alexander Johnston, Commercial Hotel,, was next charged with selling to Sergeant Beatty a pint of brandy containing 20 porcent. of water. Inspector Thompson prosecuted, and! Mr. O'Meagher defended. Sergeant Beatty after giving evidence as to the purchase" of the brandy, stated that the defendant had said something to the effect that he would find water in the whole of the brandy. To Mr. O'Meagher, witness said that he was positive that it was after he had read the paper that defendant mentioned water. Defendant offered him brandy out of a Hennessy's bottle, but he would not have it. Constable M'Gaughran stated that hohad accompanied Sergeant Beatty to the defendant's hotel. He heard defendant say, " You will find nothing but water, Sergeant," or words to that effect. He could not say whether it was before or after Mr. Johnston had delivered the brandy that he said there was water in it. Alexander Johnston, the defendant, stated that when Sergeant Beatty asked for the brandy, he was about to give it to him from a bottle of Hennessy's, the best brandy he had. The sergeant pointed to the decanters and asked if any of them contained brandy, Witness replied "yes," and the sergeant asked if ho usually sold the brandy from them over the counter. Witness Replied that ho did, and the sergeant asked for a. pint from the decanter. Witness, as he was pouring tha liquor into the sergeant's bottle, Baid, " You will find nothing in it but water,, sergeant, so far as I am concerned." repeated this several times, and had re-* minded Sergeant Beatty of the circuiu> stance after he received the summons.. His Worship dismissed the case. William Morgan Southan was charged with having sold to Sergeant Beatty one pint of brandy adulterated to the extent of 21 per cent, of water* Mr. O'Meagher said the defence in this case would be even stronger than in the two previous cases, as it would be shown .that the defendant even stated that alibis, liquors were reduced with water. Inspector Thompson said, that being the case, he would ask leave to withdraw the case. Case withdrawn. At this point his Worship inflicted a fine of 5s on Mr. Dodge.