Bass's Beer Prosecutions

There was a downside to Bass's fame as a Pale Ale brewer: publicans selling other brewers' beer as Bass. They frequently brought in their lawyers to fight against counterfeits.

The cases are below are pretty typical:

"BASS'S BEER PROSECUTIONS.

In the Chancery Division on May 31st, before Mr. Justice Stirling, Mr. John Cutler moved on behalf of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, the well-known brewers of bitter beer, against Mr. Butcher, the proprietor of the White Lion Hotel, Chippenham, for an injunction to restrain him, until the trial or further order, from passing off, or attempting to pass off, ale or beer not brewed by the plaintiffs as and for the goods of the plaintiffs.—Mr. Cutler said that in consequence of complaints made as to the quality of bitter ale bought or asked for at the house in question, the plaintiffs had sent some person to the White Lion, who ordered Bass's pale ale, and were supplied with pale ale, which they took away, and which was afterwards analysed and turned out to be not the plaintiffs' ale. He, therefore, now moved for an injunction, but he was instructed that the defendant appeared by counsel, and consented to treat this hearing as the trial of the action, to submit to a perpetual injunction and pay the costs, in which case Messrs. Bass waived their claim for an account of profit and damages. The learned Counsel said that his clients had received a letter from the defendant's solicitors, saying that the writers had just heard from their client, who consented to submit to a perpetual injunction with costs, and that he would instruct counsel accordingly on the motion, which could be treated as the trial of the action, but as yet counsel for defendant had not appeared.—The Judge said if Mr. Cutler found that counsel had been so instructed to that effect he need not mention it again, and the order would go, treating the hearing of the motion as the trial of the action; but, in case of difficulty, it might be mentioned later in the day.

Bass V. White.—Mr. Bousfield, Q.C. (with him Mr. John Cutler), said that he had a similar application to that which his friend Mr. Cutler had just made.—Mr. Young asked that the motion might stand over for affidavits.—Mr. Bousfield said that in that case he must ask his friend to give an undertaking ; but this Mr. Young declined to give, as he knew as yet nothing about the case.—Mr. Bousfield : Then he must move ex parte; but this Mr. Young submitted he could not do after giving notice of motion.—Mr. Bousfield said he felt sure that his friend would not say that it was right to sell Allsopp's beer for Bass's.—The Judge asked to see the affidavits, which were accordingly handed up.—Mr. Bousfield said that Messrs. Bass and Co. had reason to believe that there had been a practice of supplying other beer when Bass's beer was ordered, and they instructed agents to test the, matter on their behalf, and the affidavits gave in detail the different occasions on which one or other of these gentlemen ordered Bass's beer and were served with Allsopp's. They went to the defendant's house and asked for Bass's beer—generally as "a small Bass," and they observed that a bottle of Allsopp's beer was taken from another place, the bottle being attempted to be held so that the label should not be seen, and that was supplied as Bass's beer.—The Judge said it appeared from the first affidavit that the act occurred on May 18th, and they evidently had not thought it worth while to apply ex parte, The motion must stand over till next week.

Bass V. Keys.—Mr. Bousfield said this case stood on a similar basis to the last.—Mr. Warmington, Q.C., said that it did not stand on a similar basis. He complained of the way in which it had been treated. They had applied to Mr. Justice Kekewich for special leave on May 24th, but had not supplied his client with affidavits until the 29th.—This case was also directed to stand over.

Mr. Bousfield said he had still another motion, in an action of "Bass v. Riddle," which, under the circumstances, he would agree to stand over for a week."
"Food & sanitation, Volume 4", 1894, page 179.

I'm sure plenty of this still goes on today. Unscrupulous publicans flogging cheap beer under a different name. I wonder if Heineken ever take anyone to court?