BREACHES OF THE BEER DUTY ACT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3011, 31 October 1891, Page 2

BREACHES OF THE BEER DUTY ACT.

Hamilton, Thursday.— (Before Captain Jackson, R.M.) Edward Cusskn", brewer, of Cambridge, was charged with a breach of the Beer Duty Act, LSBO, by neg!«ctin<» to make true and exact entries of all beer ssnt nut by him on the 10th of July last. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Hudson Williamson) appeared on behalf of the Customs Department, Mr Thomas Hill, Collector at Auckland, also being present. Mr W. M. Hay being unavoidably absent through illness, Mr A. Swurbrick appeared for Mr Cussen, who ploaded "Guilty," and the minimum fine of &">O, and costs (Sli Is 0d), was inflicted. The whole of the brewery and plant was also ordered to be confiscated. The Court them adjourned until the afternoon, in order to allow Mr Cussen to obtain the money whorewith to pay the fine. On re-oponing at four o'clock the whole of the fine and costi were paid, and the ton other cases against the samo defendant were thou withdrawn. During the afternoon Mr Jackmann proceeded to Cambridge and took possession of tho brewery. YESTERDAY. C. Innes, brewer, of Hamilton, was charged with a breach of the Boor Duty Act, 1880, by having failed to make true, and exact entries of all beor sold, and sunt out of his brewery on the 15th September. MiWilliamson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr R. W. Dyer, of Hamilton, for the defence. Mr S. J. Jackman deposed that he was an inspector of breweries in New Zealand and that he had examined the books and found a discrepancy as two 3tigallon casks of beer were signed for as having been received by Mr Biixton on the atli of September, and that on the 15th two more 36 gallon casks had been delivered. Mr Buxton gave evidence that he had only received two 3G-gallon casks on the 15th and nine on the Oth. The defendant also gave evidence and explained the miatake in the date. Hia Worship dismissed the information as he considered the offence had not been committed with fraudulent intent. Henry Lewie, an hotel-keeper, of Tβ Awamutu, was charged with a breach of the Boer Duty Act, 1880, in not defacing stamps on beer casks in his collar. Defendant pleaded not guilty, hvidotice was given by Mr Jackman and Constable Jones of tho Rtamps not being defaced. The defendant considered ho had defaced the stamps by dirtying them, but Mr Hill said that did not constitute defacement. After a little consideration Mr Lewis decided to let the case stand, and ha was fined £2 and costs i' 3 12s. Charles Innos was chargud with a breach of the Beer Duty Act, 1880, by failing to place stamps on casks sontjout of his brewery. Mr Jackitan gave considerable evidence as to his examing the books of the defendant, and relative the case. Mr Buxtou also gave evidence. Mr Innes was examined at length, and Hie Worship dismissed the case, us he was of opinion that the offence had uot been committed. At !) p.m. the Court adjourned till to-day, at 11 a.m., when the remaining charges will be proceeded with, before two J.P.a.