In a special session today, Mr E. F. Hickson, R.M., presided over a hearing to address summonses issued by Sergeant Kennedy, an inspector under the Food and Drugs Act. The charges were brought against five licensed vintners in Limerick, namely Thomas McInerney, William Doyle, Christopher Clohesy, Andrew Lee, and William Nagle. The vintners were accused of unlawfully selling a counterfeit product marked as “Rutter’s Cider” in violation of the Food and Drugs Acts of 1875 and 1899.
The complainant, an unnamed purchaser, alleged that on the 22nd of November last year, he acquired a liquid purporting to be “Rutter’s Cider” from the defendants. However, subsequent analysis revealed that the product was not genuine cider but a spurious imitation. The defendants facing prosecution are now grappling with the legal implications of selling a misrepresented product.
Mr J. Dundon, solicitor for the Corporation, appeared to support the prosecution, while Mr P. Kelly, instructed by Messrs. R. McNamara and P. J. O’Sullivan, solicitors, represented the defendants. Mr A. J. Dodds also acted on behalf of Messrs. Doyle and Nagle.
The cases were consolidated for efficiency, and Sergeant Kennedy recounted the details of his investigation. He testified that during the purchase at Clohesy’s establishment, he specifically asked for a pint of cider, paying for it accordingly. The assistant informed him that the beverage was “Rutter’s, of Cork,” and displayed a show card with the words “Rutter’s celebrated sparkling cider” and the associated trademark. A subsequent analysis by Sir Charles Cameron revealed that the liquid contained only 0.66% alcohol by volume, far below the typical alcohol content of genuine cider. The certificate further stated that the sample was a non-fermented saccharine liquid with added flavouring or acid, categorizing it as a spurious imitation.
Under cross-examination, Mr Kelly questioned Sergeant Kennedy’s prior knowledge of Rutter’s cider, suggesting that the inspector might have received certificates vouching for the purity of the cider in the past. While the witness could not confirm previous certifications, he maintained that the sample obtained from Clohesy’s was indeed misrepresented.
Christopher Clohesy, one of the defendants, testified that he purchased the cider from Rutter’s in Cork and sold it to customers, often in combination with whiskey. He asserted that the product received positive reviews, and he considered it a genuine article. Mr Hickson probed Clohesy about the quantity sold and the pricing, revealing that the cider was predominantly sold in combination with other beverages.
In the proceedings related to Messrs. Nagle and Doyle, it was clarified that they sold cider known to be manufactured by Rutter’s. Sergeant Kennedy’s purchase from Andrew Lee was amended as the word “Rutters” was struck out from the summons.
Mr Kelly, on behalf of the defendants, argued that the complainant received what he requested and suffered no prejudice from the purchase. He challenged the validity of the certificate, contending that there was no oral evidence defining what constituted cider, aside from the certificate itself. Mr Dodds asserted that a “Cideretta” was a non-alcoholic cider, and the product was not explicitly guaranteed to be apple-based.
Mr Dundon, supporting the prosecution, maintained that the charges were substantiated, leaving Mr Hickson to deliberate on the evidence presented. The case against Mr Nagle was dismissed, with judgment reserved on the remaining defendants, leaving Limerick’s vintners awaiting the outcome with anticipation and concern over the potential repercussions for their trade.
Dublin Daily Express – Wednesday 11 January 1911
