Carlisle Patriot February 6, 1880 Selling Whisky Under Proof

Selling Whisky Under Proof

Francis HARKER, innkeeper, Armathwaite, appeared to answer a charge of selling whisky 3.8 deg. Under proof. - Mr. ERRINGTON, of Carlisle, appeared for the defendant.   Supt. FOWLER, who prosecuted, said that on the 12th of last month he called at defendant’s house and purchased three quarters of a pint of whisky, for which he paid him 1s 6d. He told him he had purchased the whisky for the purpose of having it analysed by the public analyst at Whitehaven. He divided it into three equal parts, put each part in a separate bottle, and corked and sealed each bottle. One bottle he gave to the defendant, one he sent to the public analyst at Whitehaven for analysis, and the other he kept for a future occasion, if necessary.  He produced the certificate of the analyst, Dr. MONTGOMERY, of Whitehaven, stating that though the whisky contained nothing injurious to health, it was under proof.   By Mr. ERRINGTON: When he went into the bar, he saw a notice stating that the article he purchased was mixed with water. Mr. ERRINGTON said his defence was that his client had committed no offence. Chief-Justice COCKBURN, in the Derby case, saw sufficient indication to infer that the article the vendor was selling was not pure whisky. They came to the conclusion that if there was an adulteration of something like 25 percent, they would not convict the man.   Mr. FOWLER: Everybody knows that spirits are mixed with water.   Mr. JAMESON: What is your defence?   Mr. ERRINGTON: My defence is that the wisky was accidentally mixed by the wife. My client is usually in the habit of mixing it himself.   Mr. JAMESON said that as the last Act authorized the mixing of water to a certain extent, they thought this notice was not sufficient as it stated, “To be sold as mixed spirits and water,” which might mean anything or nothing. Consequently they thought he had committed an offence, but, at the time, as the quantity was so very small - 3-8-10ths under proof - they would only impose a very small fine - 1s and costs.

 

< Prev		Next >