Leney fined for excessive brewing (1917)

Post date: Jan 21, 2014 3:14:7 PM

The following is an extract from a Report for the week ending Wednesday December 19, 1917 marked as Secret-National archives CAB/24/36.

ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS. Mr. E. P. Lickfold has been appointed to act as Solicitor to the Ministry in regard to prosecutions, and lie will in future conduct all cases in which the Ministry is prosecuting direct. Arrangements' have been made for obtaining full information regularly from Food Control Committees with reference to all prosecutions and investigations instituted by them and for summarising and distributing the information thus ­ obtained.

The following cases may. be noted :—

On December 17, John Thomas, a Walsall metal refiner, was fined 50Z. and also sentenced to six months' imprisonment for food hoarding. The goods found in his possession were confiscated; they included 422 lbs. of tea, 311 lbs. of bacon and ham, 175 lbs. of flour, 232 tins of meat and fish, 127 tins of tomatoes and fruits, 133 lbs. of biscuits.

The Rector of Knodishall being found in possession of a sack of sugar when his motor car broke clown, the sugar was returned to the grocer who had sold it. Fines of 51. on the grocer and 3L on the clergyman were imposed.

Colonel Lombe was prosecuted at Towcester on the 18th instant and fined 90L and lbl. 15s. costs for having in his possession a large quantity of sugar, tea and coffee. The Chief Constable of Northampton sent a request to the Ministry that a London solicitor should be instructed in this case because he was afraid of the local prejudice in the district in the event of a local solicitor conducting the case.

Mrs. Gundy was prosecuted at Stratford-on-Avon on the 17th and fined 101. and 10s. costs. Messrs. Bennett were also fined 251. for aiding and abetting, they being the wholesale firm, who had supplied a large quantitv of tea to this lady. On the 18th December.

Messrs. Leney & Sons, brewers of Wateringbury, Kent, were fined £100 and £10. 10s. costs for excessive brewing.

The Dover Express reported the case as follows on 21st December as follows:

At the Malling Police Court on Monday, Messrs. Fred Leney and Sons, Ltd., of Wateringbury, pleaded guilty to brewing 2,521 barrels of beer up to June 30th, instead of 2,274,. and were fined £100 and £10 10s. costs.

Keith Hethrington in his article in The Journal of The Brewery History society of summer 1998 says that Bertram Leney was in charge of brewing at the time and had been called up in June 1917.

A fuller report of the case was in the Kent Messenger of 22 December 1917:

At Malling Police Court, on Monday, Fredk. Leney and. Sons, Ltd., Wateringbury and Richard Tapply, a director, were summoned for unlawfully brewing, for the quarter ending 30th June last, more than the maximum barrelage of beer allowed. Mr. A. J. Ellis prosecuted on behalf of the Food Controller, and Mr. W. C. Cripps, of Tunbridge Wells, represented the company, who pleaded guilty.

Mr. Ellis explained that the offence consisted in defendants brewing for the quarter ending June 30th last, 2,521 barrels, instead of 2,274, an excess of 247 barrels, after the following order had been served on them:—

This was served in April. On the 23rd June a warning in writing was served on Messrs. Leney to the effect that they had then brewed a quantity of beer equal to their authorised output, and, on June 25th the following letter was sent to them: “As the quantity of beer brewed by you in two current quarters exceeds the amount of your authorised output for two quarters ending 30th Inst., I shall be

glad if you will append hereto any explanation on the subject that you may have to offer for the consideration of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise." To this the firm re­plied that: “Our Managing Director, Mr. B. Leney, who conducted the brewery, was called up about the middle of the month. This has caused considerable disorganisation and confusion. We were under the impression

that we were well in hand, and the official intimation came as a great surprise. We tender our apologies to the Commis­sioners, and would venture to ask them, in view of the fact that prorata to our trade, we need more than allowed in the first two quarters and less in the second two quarters,

that they allow us to slightly vary the quarterly figures.” If the matter had ended there (said Mr. Ellis), perhaps the Bench would not have been troubled with the case, but what happened was this. After the warning of June 25th the defendant company stall went on brewing for at least two, if not three days. That rather did away with the value of their explanation. With regard to the question of extenuating cir­cumstances, it was a fact that Mr. Bertram Leney had joined up, and was serving his

country. But it would he ridiculous to sug­gest that in a brewery of this kind Mr. Bertram Leney was the only man capable of brewing. Mr. Tapply had been with the firm for years, having been the Secretary and then a Director, and he (Mr. Ellis) believed that he had been in charge of the

brewery. At any rate, from his experience he ought to have seen that the output of beer was not exceeded; and he certainly should have stopped the brewing after the formal letter was received. Having mentioned that as Mr. Tapply signed the entry book he was liable to all “fines, penalties,” etc., Mr. Ellis suggested that, having regard to the warning notice, the defendant company deliberately exceeded their maximum out­put, and that there could only be one reason

why they did so. It would be for the Bench to say what penalties should be imposed. Un­der the Defence of the Realm Regulations their Worships could inflict a fine on Mr. Tapply of £100, and, or, six months’ im­prisonment. As regarded the company, all they could do was to inflict a fine. The

Food Controller looked upon this as a serious case. These Orders were made be­cause the country was in peril, and it was necessary that the brewing of beer should be limited. Mr. Ellis added that it was now his unpleasant duty to read to the Bench the fol­lowing letter which the Food Controller had sent him.

Mr. Cripps: I object to that.

Mr. Ellis said if his friend objected he would put it another way. In justice to the brewers who were loyally obeying the orders, it was only right that a severe penalty should be inflicted, in those cases where the output had been exceeded. It was not likely that much notice would be taken of these Orders and Regulations unless the Court enforced the penalties.

Mr. Cripps proceeded to say that the only persons who were before the Court were the corporate body of Messrs. Frederick Leney and Sons. There was no information and no summons against Mr. R. Tapply. The latter was not before the Court, at all, and the case against him must therefore be dismissed. As to the offence committed by Messrs. Leney what was it? That for the quarter ending

30th June last they brewed 247 barrels of beer more than they ought to have done. That was not, a large excess when the Bench took into account the size of the brewery. It might be in the case of a small brewery, but when they were dealing with a large brewery the difference between 2,521 and

2,274 barrels was not very great. If they had exceeded the quantity by say 1000 or 1,500 barrels, it would have been a dif­ferent matter. As to Mr. Tapply’s position, he (Mr. Cripps) was, instructed that he had nothing to do with the brewing business. Mr Bertram Leney was called up on the 8th or 9th June, and necessarily things were in a difficult position. As a matter of fact, Mr. Tapply said he understood from Mr. Ber­tram Leney that they had enough barrelage in hand to go on to the end of the quarter. It was perfectly true that a letter was received from the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as to the barrelage, but Mr. Tapply was under the impression that he could carry forward these 247 excess barrels into the next quarter. Messrs. Leney wrote to the authorities: “We unfortunately, as already explained over-brewed 247 barrels for June quarter. We are most, anxious to avoid transgressing your Regulations, and therefore beg to enquire whether we are, as we believe, entitled to brew our September quarter allowance without deducting the before-mentioned barrels."

Mr. Cripps offered another explanation. It was well known, he said, in the brewing trade, that, the fermentation for the purposes of the production of beer was caused by the action of yeast it was a remarkable thing and he had in his mind what was done at one of the largest, breweries in London, that the brewers maintained the same yeast, in succession. As a matter of fact, the yeast in the use of the brewery he had just referred to had been a living organism for 45 years; while Messrs.

Leney’s brewery had had this particular yeast for no less than 21 years if they, stopped the brewing in a brewery for two days, the organism died, and the character of the beer which was brewed changed entirely. He was told by brewers that this continuity of the yeast was an absolutely essential matter. He put that to the Court as showing not that Messrs. Leney and Sons deliberately for the sake of making a profit brewed these miserable 247 barrels, but that there was a substantial

reason for this and that it was a matter which the Court might reasonably take into considera­tion.

Mr. Ellis,replying to the point of law, contended that the summons against Mr. Tapply was in order. It was quite true, he said, that the summons was addressed to Frederick Leney and Sons, Ltd. of Watering­bury,” but it went on to say “of which com­pany Richard Tapply is a director.”

The Bench retired to consider the case. After an absence of twelve minutes, the Chairman said: We have carefully consi­dered the points raised in this case, and our decision is as follows: The summons in so far as it affects Mr. Tapply is dismissed. Frederick Leney and Company have pleaded

guilty to the charge, and they will he fined.

Mr. Ellis also asked for costs.

Mr. Cripps: I suggest if you fine defen­dants the full penalty of £100 that is suffi­cient.

Mr. Ellis: I suggest your Worships allow the prosecution ten guineas costs.

The Chairman: The Bench win agree to that.