BEER DUTY PROSECUTIONS

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 360, 17 April 1889, Page 4

BEER DUTY PROSECUTIONS

Wellington, April 13. The beer duty prosecutions, oi which so much has been heaid in connection wich the " split in the Cabinet," took the form of an action in the Wellington R. M, Court yesterday. Owen McArdle, Secretaiy o! the Junction Brewery Company, ua*charged with having neglected to make a true and exact entry of nine hogsheads or beer sold on the 30th October last The Company was charged with a similar oftence under a separate information. Mr Robinson, R.M., in giving iudgment, said there was a discrepancy in the evidence given for the defence, and too much reliance could not be placed on it. He fixed the penalty at £50 in each case. In the case against the Company he allowed £3 3? solicitor'^ fees, and 7* costs of Court. This penalty includes by statute the forfeit me of all beer in the brewery at the date of the oflence, and also all the_ plant and uten sils used in the manufacture of &uch beer. The same defendants \\ ore further charged that they did, on the 30th of November, 1888, neglect to cancel, two stamps upon two caaks containing two hogsheads of beer. Fives amounting to £40 and costs were inflicted in these cases. A still further charge against Owen McArdle of having neglected to make an entry of two hogsheads of beer, sent out from the brewery on the 1 7th of October, was, heard, but dismissed, as the defendant satisfactorily explained that the beer was entered, but upon the wrong date. The remaining charges against Hamilton (,Jilmer, proprietor of the Empire Hotel, a\ ere next heard. They were as follows :—: — 1. Receiving one cask of beer from the Junction Brewery, to which a stamp had not been affixed. 2. With drawing beer from a cask to which the proper stamp had not been affixed. 3. With being concerned in a fraudulent device not specially prohibited by the Beer Duty Act, 1880, viz., receiving a cask of beer from the Junction Brewery, the stamp on which had not been properly cancelled. The defendant pleaded not guilty. After heaiing the evidence the Court dismissed the first two charges. In the third charge a conviction was j»6O vied, the maximum of £20 and costs ben q inflicted.