A TWICE-USED STAMP.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 167, 14 July 1916, Page 4

A TWICE-USED STAMP.

SENT THROUGH THE POST OFFICE. . ]AX AUCKLAXDER PROSECUTED. The discovery of an effort to cheat the Post and Telegraph .Department .by posting a letter bearing on it a stamp that had been previously used resulted in Van Auckland -resident being brought before the Police Court this morning. The defendant was Reginald-- Smith Hardy., a carrier, ■who admitted that on June /3-.-he posted;.-a; letterj bearing•■_-»• good penny stamp and a used halfpenny stamp. .. . CMef Detective McMahon stated that defendant did some carrying for a butcher, and on June 13 a letter was left at his house for him to deliver at Mr. Wilding's .office, . When defendant got home and got. thte- letter he found he had-not time "to-personally deliver the letter,-so her.put-qn it a.good penny stamp,, but: added, .a. halfpenny stamp that had been used previously and posted the letter. When the "fraud was noticed by the Post Office authorities, and a detective interviewed defendant, he admitted having put the stamps on ttie letter, but said that the used halfpenny stamp must have got mixed with the good ones in his pocket. Against that explanation there was the fact-that a- used stamp generally required to be re-gummed, and the stamp in this case was very evenly affixed to the envelope, indicating that it must have been carefully affixed to the letter. Although the full penalty under the Post and Telegraph Act was a fine of £50, and the postal authorities looked upon the matter, even of the use of only a bad halfpenny «tamp, as a -serious one, a heavy fine was not. asked in this case. Defendant was a young married man with four yqung .children, and his employment was not steady, and brought not more than £2 10/ to £2 12/ a week. The prosecution was intended largely as a warning to the. public. ■ The Bench stated that under the circumstances the defendant would Tie fined 20/ arid 7/ coets, but" they recognised thfe seriousness of the-offence, and had defendantTJeen in a good position the full penalty of £50 would have been imposed.