A TEMPERANCE DRINK.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 474, 24 May 1890, Page 5

A TEMPERANCE DRINK.

Auckland, May 20. It has been the custom for grocers to sell ginger wine to their customers for many years past. Recently, Sergeant Gamble visited several grocers’ shops and purchased bottles of ginger wine, which were duly forwarded to the Government Analyst, Mr J. A. Pond. The result of the analysis was sufficient to astonish those temperance people who drink this wine under the impression that it is free from alcohol. Mr Pond’s certificate showed that the samples submitted to him contained from 29 to 30 per cent, of alcohol.

Sergeant Gamble then laid informations against the following persons William Earle, Thomas Billington, Robert Drummond, William Young, Robert Gallaugher, •James Entrican, and Frederick Whitehead. They were each charged at the Police Court to-day with having committed a breach of the Licensing Act, 1881, section 59, by selling liquor, bo wit ginger wine, to one Richard Gamble, each of them nob possessing a license to sell the same. Inspector Broham appeared on behalf of the prosecution.

Mr J. P. Campbell appeared for all the defendants but Mr Whitehead, and pleaded guilty on their behalf to having committed a technical breach of the Licensing Act. He said that the offences had been committed unintentionally, as the defendants were not aware that the ginger wine contained alcohol to any appreciable extent. Ginger wine was sold by most grocers, and in all the cases in which he appeared the sale had been stopped as soon as it was known that the wine contained such a large amount of alcohol.

Inspector Broham said that complaints had been made by persons licensed to sell wines and spirituous liquors, regarding grocers selling ginger wine. Sergeant Gamble therefore secured samples and had them analysed. Mr Pond stated that the ginger wine contained from 29 to 31 per cent, of alcohol. Tho samples were very similar in character, being simply diluted syrup, with the addition of essence or infusion of ginger. Some samples showed chloride of sodium together with heavy braces of copper. Ales contained from 9 to 13 per cent, of proof spirit, light wines 15 to 22 per cent., and port and sherry 25 to 40 per cent. Dr. Giles decided to hear the other case.

_ Frederick Whitehead was charged with a similar offence, and pleaded not guilty. Mr F. Brookfield appeared for defendant, and said that he pleaded nob guilty in order to bring out the facts of the case; He admitted the sale of the ginger wine, and accepted the analysis as correct. But his client alleged that he did not keep ginger wine for sale. He had spoken to the police previously to know if ginger wine could be sold. He only kept ginger wine for his own private use, and had only this one left, which was not exposed for Bale. Inspector Broham decided to call evidence.

Sergeant Gamble deposed to purchasing a bottle of ginger wine from defendant on the 17th of laso month. Defendant was a grocer, residing in Victoria-street. The bottle was marked, “ Manufactured by Johnson and Co., London and Dublin.” Witness remarked that he supposed it was English - made ginger wine. Mr Whitehead replied, “No, it is pub up by Sharland and Co.” Previous to this occasion witness had asked the assistant at Mr Whitehead’s if he sold ginger wine. He replied “ Yes,” and produced a bottle like the one he afterwards purchased. Mr Whitehead told witness that he would be very glad to know how much alcohol there was in the ginger wine. Frederick Whitehead deposed that he was a grocer carrying on business in Victoriastreet. He sold the bottle of ginger wine, but it had nob been exposed for sale. Some days afterwards he met Gamble and offered to give him written authority to go to Sharland’s and find out what wine he had sold during the last six or eight months. He had purchased three bottles of ginger wine from Sharland and Co. on the Bth of October, IBS9, Two were privately consumed, and the other was sold to Sergeant Gamble. . '

Dr. Giles said ,tbat there appeared to have been a technical breach of the Act in every case. He therefore fined each defendant 40s and costs, ‘