View report page

253
[1905
I find that the sales in these cases by the defendants were both to the prejudice of the
purchaser.
Having come to these conclusions, I find that both Wells and Davidge have infringed the
law, and I must fix and order penalties on each of the two summonses.
The offence committed by both defendants is the same, and the same practically in
degree. Therefore I think the penalty in each case must be the same.
The misrepresentation with regard to Irish and Scotch whiskey has become very usual
and its adulteration by the addition to it of patent still spirit, made largely from maize,
has been gradually increasing foi years, and the result has been taken by the unsuspecting
public to the benefit of the distillers, dealers and retailers, until the so-called " blenders "
have dared to concoct and place upon the market and sell to retailers, raw new patent still
spirit, with a mere dash of Irish or Scotch whiskey in it, as "Irish whiskey" and "Scotch
whiskey." The retailer has in turn sold this effort of adulteration to the public under the
description by which it was sold to him.
It is time the fraud upon the public in the matter of the sale of whiskey was stopped
and, though doubtless these prosecutions are very costly to those who engage in them, the
information obtained and published in the course of the hearing of these two summonses is
most valuable and the result of this trial seems to me to afford ample justification for the
prosecutions.
Great blame attaches, in my opinion, to the "blenders" who supplied Wells and Davidge
with the articles they sold. I do not think much moral blame attaches to the defendants
themselves, as I believe they trusted to those who sold the articles to them to supply them with
that which they might fairly and honestly retail to the public as Irish and as Scotch whiskey
respectively ; but at the same time, in my judgment, it was careless of the defendants to sell what
they did as they did, and since they only are before me they must pay the penalty for their
infringement of the law.
The costs incurred by the prosecution in putting these cases before the Court are of course
very heavy and considering the position of the defendants I cannot order them to pay more
than what must be a small part of the actual costs incurred, while I regret that the prosecutors
should be anything out of pocket in bringing the matter before the Court and so to
public notice.
As the costs to be paid by the defendants must be heavy as costs upon them I shall impose
but small nominal fines.
The defendants Thomas Samuel Wells and James Davidge will each pay a fine of 20s.
and .£100 costs, or be imprisoned in default of distress for two months in the second division.
Mr. Walter : You will give us time, Sir, please, to consider your judgment with a view
of the possibility of an appeal?
Mr. Fordham : Oh, certainly; and I may add, that I will give you any assistance in my
power.