Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 971, 20 August 1881, Page 2

In the case of Regina v. Gibbons for a breach of the Beer Duty Act, his Worship the Resident Magistrate gave his decision on Thursday morning. In doing so he said the clause of the Act, under which the information was laid, did not leave to the Magistrate any discretionary power. The 15th section specially states: — Every brewer shall obtain from the Collector of the district in which his brewery is situated the proper stamps, and shall do the following things : —(1.) Affix upon the plug or stopper of the tap-hole in the head of every cask, when sold or removed from such brewery, a stamp denoting the amount of the duty payable upon such beer, in such a way that the said stamp will be destroyed upon the withdrawal of the liquor, from such cask, or upon the introduction of a faucet or other instrument for that purpose. (2.) At the time of affixing such stamp cancel the same by writing or imprinting thereon the name of the brewer by whom such beer was made, or the initial letters thereof, and the date when cancelled,

It not only stipulates that the stamp must be affixed before the cask leaves the brewery, but, further, it must be placed on a particular spot. From this it was plain to be seen that the stamp must be affixed before the cask left the brewery. The 18th section, under which the counsel for the defence desired to have the information laid, is as follows : — Whenever any person knowingly sells, removes, receives, or purchases, or in any way knowingly aids in the sale, removal, receipt, or purchase of any beer contained in any cask from any brewery, upon which the proper stamp required by this Act has not been affixed, or on which a false or fraudulent stamp is affixed, or on which a stamp once cancelled is again used, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds. Now the 17th section is most distinct — Every brewer who refuses or neglects to affix and cancel any stamp in the manner required by this Act, or who affixes a false or fraudulent stamp thereto, or knowingly permits the same to be done, shall be liable to a penalty of twenty pounds for each cask or package on which such omission or fraud occurs. The facts of the case as admitted were reviewed at some length by his Worship, and proved that he had carefully considered every point both as to the evidence, and the Act under which the charge was brought. He quoted the 48th section, which is as follows:— In all proceedings under this Act for any offence or breach thereof, the person against whom such proceedings are taken shall be deemed to have committed the offence, or to have done the Act charged or alleged, or incurred the liability sought to be imposed, as the case may be, unless he shall prove to the contrary, and such proof shall not be upon the Collector or proper officer who shall have taken any such proceedings. He said there could not be the slighest doubt the cask of beer had been sent to Mr. Wilson’s without the proper stamp being affixed, as the evidence clearly disclosed that a mes- ■ senger had been sent by Mr. Wilson

to the brewery to obtain the necessary stamp. The wording of clause 17 distinctly pointed out that neglecting to affix a stamp rendered the defendant liable. Neglect might be through forgetfulness, or through design, but he was of opinion that in the present case there was not any intention to defraud the revenue. However, the fact was clear, the stamp had not been put on when the cask was removed. Now, was the offence purged by the stamp being put on subsequently ? He thought not. He had no discretion in the matter, but had simply to follow the Act, and, therefore, must impose a fine of £2O and costs, the amount to be paid on the following day, or in default the defendant to be imprisoned for one month. Mr. Brassey gave notice of appeal. The fine is generally considered to be an excessive one, but as the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Nolan, insisted upon the information being laid under the 15th section, his Worship had no alternative but to impose the fine mentioned. Had the prosecution been under the 18th section, possibly a fine of one shilling would have resulted. The mistake was not one of design, and we are given to understand, and believe it to be the case, that Mr. Gibbons had the necessary, or as the Act has it, the “ proper stamp ” cancelled and ready to place upon the cask, but business having called him to another portion of the brewery at the time the dray which conveyed the offending receptical for beer to Mr. Wilson’s was being loaded, he was not aware that he had committed so great and serious an offence as that which was laid against him under the the Beer Duty Act. We feel proud to see that the people of Gisborne have taken up the matter, and thinking that the fine inflicted (although as the Act directs) is altogether beyond the deserts of the offence, have opened a subscription list to defray Mr. Gibbons’ expenses. Already a goodly amount has been subscribed, and we feel convinced that other monies will be readily collected.