View report page

1904]
242
think his evidence as a taster is more reliable than Mr. I'heysey'n, but because when Mr.
Merritt tasted it he did not do so with the expectation or wish to find grain spirit, and It
certainly was not in accordance with his inclination to say in evidence that In
his opinion there was grain spirit in the liquor which he sold In the two octaves to the
defendant. And white dealing with Mr. Merritt's evidence I must say that I thought considering
the difficult circumstances, Mr. Merritt's gave his evidence very fairly. He impresseu
me with the notion that he is a man of honour, and I value his testmony accordingly. Mr.
Tank, of the firm of Brown & Pank, testified to the effect that analysts were not to be
depended upon on the subject of brandy, but he bad more reliance in tasters, and Mr.
McKechnie, of the firm of Bowen and McKechnie, Is of opinion that if a poor person wants
brandy and cannot afford to pay more than 2s. 3d. or 3s. a bottle, it Is quite fair to sell to
such a person as brandy a spirit distilled from some other material than wine, provided It
is flavoured as and has the "characteristics" of brandy. There was a suggestion made by
the defence in this case that I am sorry to see made, because I think that suggestion was
unfair to two houses of great and good reputation as shippers of brandy. It was suggested
by Mr. Merritt, Mr, Tank and Mr. McKechnie that Martell's and Hennessy's brandies contain
completely rectified grape spirit, that is, spirit from which all the peculiar properties of
grape spirit have been removed, and this suggestion was not supported by any proof. It is
true that some invoices from one or both of these firms were produced, and on these was a
charge for spirit, but there was nothing to show what that spirit was, and I find no reason for
assuming that it was anything but very good strong brandy-it may be, of course, something
else, but I have no reason for assuming it was which is put into the casks because from
lapse of time the contents of the casks had lost some of their strength. It would have been
satisfactory to have had evidence as to the method of manufacture and as to the material
used in the manufacture of the brandy of Martell, or of Hennessy, or of some equally great
firm which for so long has had a great reputation for quality in this country, but none was
called. On the evidence before me I come to the conclusion that Dr. Teed is correct in his
analysis and in the opinion he formed upon it I find that this bottle of liquid labelled "Fine
Old Tale Brandy" sold by the Defendant as brandy was not brandy, and that the purchaser
was prejudiced and did not get an article of the nature, substance and quality demandedI
therefore convict the Defendant. In fixing the penalty I consider the Defendant really
had no intention to cheat the purchaser or the public by selling this mixture of brandy. Such
mixtures, some of more value than this, and some of less, have no doubt been sold in this
country for brandy very extensively for some years; for so long that amongst a certain class
of merchants and retailers it has come to be called brandy, and the Defendant has done no
more than have thousands of other respectable traders, but I do think that when a liquid is
sold as brandy, which is to use Mr. Avory's expression, an article made from spirit which
is not derived from wine the seller should be obliged to give notice to the purchaser. So far
as I know there is no reason why an intoxicating liquid made from grain spirit, beet
spirit, or wood spirit should not be sold if the public likes it, but I think it should be
distinguished to the buyer by a description, and not sold as that which it is not. I believe
that one large and respectable firm sells such mixture as this broadly as " British Brandy."
It might be described as "Industrial Brandy" or "Sophisticated Brandy," or "Mock
Brandy." but in my opinion it ought not to be sold as brandy simply, which is like selling
cats for hares—both are called puss by some people. Any fine I impose in this case will go
to the complainants, but I think they are entitled, in fairness to the ratepayers, to a sum
as fine or costs which will cover the reasonable costs of the prosecution, which has been
conducted, after great attention and research, I am sure, by Mr. bramall, in a remarkably
able manner. I order the Defendant to pay a fine of £5 and £50 costs, and in default of
distress that he be imprisoned for one month as a second-class misdemeanant-