Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Apr 1943

Vol. 89 No. 14

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tea and Sugar Licences.

asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state the number of persons in the City and County of Dublin from whom he has since the 1st January, 1942, withdrawn licences for the sale of (1) tea, (2) sugar, and (3) both tea and sugar; and if he will state in each case (1) the name of the person and place of business, (2) the date and nature of any offence alleged, (3) the date and result of any prosecution brought, (4) the date and reason for the withdrawal of the licence, and (5) the number of (a) tea and (b) sugar coupons transferred in each case.

I am circulating in the Official Report a statement giving the information asked for by the Deputy, except that regarding the number of tea and sugar coupons transferred. I do not consider it desirable that such information in relation to the business of the traders concerned should be published.

Following is the statement referred to:—

PARTICULARS OF ALL TRADERS IN DUBLIN CITY AND COUNTY WHOSE TEA AND SUGAR RETAILER LICENCES HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN SINCE 1ST JANUARY, 1942, FOLLOWING CONVICTION FOR BREACHES OF EMERGENCY POWERS ORDERS RELATING TO RATIONING AND/OR PRICE CONTROL.

Name of Person and Place of Business

Date and Nature of any Offence Alleged

(A) Date of Prosecution(B) Result of Prosecution

(A) Date of withdrawal of Tea and Sugar Retailer Licences.

(B) Reason for withdrawal of Tea and Sugar Licences.

1. Mrs. Margaret Horan Trading as:—Annesley Stores, 13 Annesley Avenue, Nth Strand, Dublin

(i) Sale of tea in September, 1941 to an unregistered customer. (ii) Sale of tea in September, 1941 at 7d. per oz. (controlled price— 2½d. per oz.)

(A) 4th March, 1942(B)(i) No Order(ii) One Month's Imprisonment

(A) 7th May, 1942.(B) In consequence of conviction of trader.

(iii) Failure to keep record of tea purchases in period from 5th April, 1941, to 6th August, 1941

(iii) £5 fine.

(iv) Failure to keep prescribed record of tea sales in the period from 5th April, 1941 to 6th August, 1941.

(iv) £5 fine*On appeal to the Circuit Court on 7th May, 1942, the sentence of one month's imprisonment was altered to a fine of £10.

2. Burech Werzberger, 44 Lower Clanbrassil Street, Dublin.

(i) Sale of sugar by wholesale while not the holder of a sugar wholesaler's licence during the period from August, 1941 to Nov., 1941.

(A) 30th March, 1942.(B)(i) £47 fine

(A) 16th Sept., 1942,(B) In consequence of conviction of trader.

(ii) Failure to keep prescribed record of sugar sales in the period from August, 1941 to 7th November, 1941.

(ii) £5 fine

(iii) Failure to keep prescribed record of sugar stocks, etc., in the period from August, 1941 to 7th November, 1941.

(iii) £5 fine

(iv) Making false declaration of stock in his sugar licence. Application dated 4th September, 1941.

(iv) Dismissed 12/- expenses allowed.

3. Patrick Moore, 13 Redmond's Hill, Dublin.

(i) Sale of 1/4 lb. tea for 2/6 on 3rd October, 1941 (controlled price —3/4 per lb.) (ii) Failure to keep record of tea purchases in period from 5th April, 1941 to 3rd October, 1941.

(A) 12th June, 1942.(B)(i) Two months' imprisonment.(ii) £2 fine.

(A) 16th Feb., 1943.(B) In consequence of conviction of trader.

(iii) Failure to keep prescribed record of tea sales in the period from 30th August, 1941 to 3rd October, 1941.

(iii) £2 fine.

(iv) Sale of tea to an unregistered customer on 3rd October, 1941

(iv) £2 fine.On appeal to the Circuit Court on 15th July, 1942, the sentence and penalties imposed in respect of charges (i), (ii) and (iii) were confirmed. The charge at (iv) was withdrawn.

4. John Slevin, Swords Road, Whitehall, Dublin.

(i) Sale of 1 lb. pot of marmalade on 4th May, 1942, for 1/8 (controlled price—1/2) (ii) Failure to issue receipt for 1 lb. of marmalade when requested by purchaser to do so.

(A) 28th October, 1942(B)(i) £25 fine(ii) £20 fine

(A) 16th Feb., 1943. (B) In consequence of conviction of trader.

(iii) Offering to sell turf at the rate of 80/- per ton on 23rd February, 1942 (controlled price, 64/- per ton).

(iii) Conviction recorded. (Probation of Offenders Act applied.)

(v) Sale or disposal of approximately 8 cwt. of sugar to unregistered customers and/or in excess of prescribed ration to registered customers in the period from 11th November, 1941 to 30th April, 1942.

(iv) Conviction recorded. (Probation of Offenders Act applied.)

Has the Minister no objection to giving that information to rival traders to whom coupons are handed over?

That does not happen.

Surely it does.

It has happened. Does the Minister deny that it has happened?

Top
Share