Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 21 December 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

fondant was for drawing beer from a cask on which the proper duty stamp had not been affixed. This was the 36-gallon cask stamped with 7s 6d instead of 9s, first mentioned.

Tuksoav, before C. A. Wray, R.M

BEER DUTIES ACT,

Captain Gibbons, proprietor of the Patea brewery, was summoned by Mr Lundon, Collector of Customs, for neglecting to fix a stamp on a barrel of beer in the manner required by the Act. Mr Hamerton appeared for the defendant, and on his objection the summons was found defective and was amended. The case was that a barrel of beer had been delivered at the Masonic Hotel, Patea. with the stamp placed 100 high over the tap hole, so that when the tap was pushed in the stamp was not properly destroyed. The barrel had been brought near the Court, and was examined by the Magistrate.

Dofendant said ho had paid the full duty on the barrel, and did not notice that the brewer had stamped it wrongly. Mr Wray thought this case should be withdrawn.

Mr Lundon agreed to that. Case withdrawn.

Before Mr Wrajq R.M., and R. C. Tonnent, J.P. DECISION IN HORSE CASE.

D. Hurley v. Houghton was a claim for £ll, the price of a horse. Plaintiff's case was that the horse was sold in the ordinary way, without warranty or even recommendation. Defendant’s case was that there was an express warranty of the horse’s soundness ; that there was an implied warranty, the plaintiff guaranteeing it to be fit for particular work ; and that there was to be a short trial, with payment for use if not purchased. The question of warranty rested on a conversation between plaintiff and defendant, and caeh swore differently. Three experts deposed to the horse being unsound, and not fit for the defendant’s work.

After evidence by the police, and after explanation by Mr Hope Gibbons as manager of the brewery, Mr Wray said the case was proved. A second charge against the same defendant was for sending out a 36 gallon cask of beer stamped with a 7s 6d stamp, instead of one for 9s at 3d a gallon duty_ The police had found this also at the Masonic Hotel.

Mr Hope Gibbons explained that it could have occurred only by mistake, as no one in the brewery remembered putting on this particular wrong stamp ; and he had discovered the error on the day that Sergeant Donovan called at the brewery to make inquiry. He had written to Mr Lundon to that effect, before he knew proceedings were being instituted. Mr Hamerton said the charge was that this was done knowingly. He had called Mr H. Gibbons and Mr M. Burke, whose duty it would be to put on the stamp, and they had no knowledge of fixing this wrong stamp knowingly. He submitted the guilty knowledge was not proved. Mr Wray : The whole case hinges on whether it was an accidental omission, or done knowingly. The Court will give to the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and caution him to be more careful in future. The information will be dismissed on these grounds. Mr Wray said: With regard to the other information on which the defendant has been convicted, the Act says he shall bo liable to a penalty of £2O. lam in doubt whether there is a discretion allowed me as to the amount. Mr Lundon : The Commissioner has power to remit all penalties where it is proved that the Court has no option. Mr Wray : I will impose tiie penalt} l, of £2O, with a recommendation to the Collector of Customs that he should endeavor at any rate to remit a portion of it. Mr Lundon ; I will take care to forward the recommendation. There is another information against this defendant for sending out a cask of beer without the name of the brewer on it or the number of gallons. I will withdraw that. Mr Wray : The object of the Act is sufficiently attained by a warning to publicans and brewers. KAKARAMEA cask. James O’Sullivan, hotelkeeper, Kakaramea, was charged with drawing beer from a cask without destroying or defacing the stamp, incurring a penalty of £SO. Defendant’s explanation was that finding a tap-hole at one end, he put the tap in there as being most convenient. He did not notice that the duty stamp was at the other end of the barrel over another hole, until his attention was called to it by the police. It did not matter to him at all, as lie had paid the duty on the barrel.

The case had been heard last week, before Dr Croft and Mr Tennent, J.P’s, who were unable to agree. Mr Wray# R.M., then arranged to hear part of the case, namely the evidence of plaintiff and defendant, without any address from cither side, Mr Tennent now sat with him.

After hearing this evidence, the Magistrates retired, and after fifteen minutes Mr Wray said : The Court have found it somewhat difficult in this case to arrive at a decision, on account of the contradictory nature of the evidence. It appears however the first step in a case of this kind, where a warranty is alleged, is that the warranty should bo proved ; and it seems to the Court, on considering the whole of the circumstances and surroundings, that the warranty has not been established. On the other hand, it has been established that the horse was delivered and payment tendered. Looking at the case all round, the Court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict and costs. The costs were £4 2s. LARCENY AT KOHL

James Nary, a youth lately employed by Messrs Bremer, near Kobi. was charged with stealing a pocket book containing ten pounds in notes, a cheque for money, and sundry papers, from a box in the bedroom of Mr L. G. Bremer. Mr Hamerton defended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence of Mr L. G. and Mr G. F. Bremer that the boy had access to the bedroom on or about December 14th, and on the property being missed the prisoner denied all knowledge ; but £8 in notes were found in the boy’s bedroom concealed, and on being taxed with this he gradually confessed the whole theft# and showed where the book was hidden in a swamp. The cheque ho had torn up, and small pieces were found. It was at first promised that no action should be taken against him, if the property was all recovered, but when the cheque was ascertained to be torn up, the boj 7 was given into custody. The prisoner, by Mr Hamerton’s advice, reserved his defence. He was committed for trial at New Plymouth. Bail was accepted in two sureties of £IOO each ; namely the boy’s father and Mr Kirk, bootmaker.

Mr London said it was necessary to bring this case into Court as a warning, because there might be collusion between a publican and a brewer to defraud the revenue by using a stamp over again. There was a second offence in not destroying the stamp, but he would not press that. Magistrate : The defendant should be more careful in future to destroy the stamp. Fined 20s, and lls costs. PATEA CASE. Francis Mullen, proprietor of the Masonic Hotel, Patea, was charged with neglecting to destroy a duty stamp on a beer cask. Defendant pleaded guilty, saying he was ignorant of what the Act required in this matter. There was a stamp on the hole, and he put the tap through it. If that did not quite destroy the stamp, he thought ho had done all that was required. Tin's was the barrel which had been brought near the Court for examination, tho evidence being that the stamp was broken, but not sufficiently destroyed. Fined 20s and costs. A second charge against the same de_