In a decisive session at the Limerick City Petty Sessions, Mr E. F. Hickson, R.M., delivered his judgment on four cases involving local licensed vintners and a shopkeeper. Thomas McInerney, Andrew Lee, and Christopher Clohesy, licensed vintners, along with William Doyle, a shopkeeper, were charged with selling an article, Rutter’s cider, that did not meet the specifications demanded by the Inspector of Foods and Drugs. The charges pertained to an incident on the 10th of last month.
Sergeant Kennedy of the R.I.C., who conducted the purchases, submitted samples for analysis by Sir Charles Cameron, the public analyst. Sir Charles’s certificate revealed that the samples were non-alcoholic, contained tannic acid, and were deemed a spurious imitation of cider.
The cases were adjourned for judgment, and yesterday, Mr Hickson, the Stipendiary, carefully considered the evidence presented. His assessment rested on the contention that Sergeant Kennedy did not receive the article he had demanded during the purchase.
Drawing a comparison with similar cases in Dublin, Mr Hickson acknowledged that convictions were secured in several instances, except for one. However, he pointed out a significant disparity in the evidence presented between Dublin and Limerick. In Dublin, the defence argued that the wording on the label attached to the bottle warranted dismissal, but Mr Hickson disagreed with this interpretation.
The Stipendiary clarified that two distinct categories of individuals were summoned in these cases: licensed and non-licensed sellers. Given that cider is considered an alcoholic beverage, Mr Hickson emphasized that those selling it should possess a proper licence. Notably, he raised concerns about a peculiar practice where the same product was marketed under different names, depending on whether the seller was licensed or not.
In one dismissed case, a placard prominently displayed the term “Cideretta” in the shop for all to see. However, Mr Hickson expressed dissatisfaction, stating that in Doyle’s case, he was not convinced that a similar placard was sufficiently visible. This led him to question the consistency and integrity of the marketing practices employed by the cider manufacturers.
Remarkably, Mr Hickson highlighted a historical context, recalling a prosecution in Limerick twelve years prior for selling cider without a licence. At that time, the defence argued that it was not cider but “Cideretta.” Strikingly, in the present cases, placards bearing the word “Cideretta” were distributed to non-licensed sellers, while those with licences received placards with the term “Cider.” This inconsistency suggested to Mr Hickson a potential fraudulent intent, compelling him to conclude that the defendants might not be entirely culpable.
In the case of McInerney, who entered a guilty plea, a fine of 20 shillings was imposed. For the remaining defendants, each received a fine. In response to a solicitor’s application, the fine on Doyle was reduced on Mr Hickson’s discretion.
Expressing his hope that the case would be pursued further on appeal, Mr Hickson underscored the need for clarity and consistency in the application of the law regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages. He urged a comprehensive examination of the practices employed by manufacturers and sellers alike.
Dublin Daily Express – Saturday 04 February 1911
