THE STAMP ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 7339, 11 October 1887, Page 4

THE STAMP ACT.

Court was heard an action to recover the amount of a dishonored bill of exchange a case of not much importance in itself, but out of it arose the question of the cancella tion of the adhesive stamp affixed to th< bill, and the Chief Justice's ruling on this is of more than ordinary interest to tin mercantile portion of the community. Tin Stamp Act, 1883, provides that the stami on an inland bill of exchange should be can celled at the time of making or completing by one of tho parties to the bill. By seotioi 4 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1884, ai "inland" bill is defined to be a bill mad< and payable within the Colony. In tin Amendment Act of 18S4 the definition wai extended to.mean any of the Australiai colonies, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Fiji As it was found the cancellation of thusi bills at the time of making would very offcei be impossible—as, for instance, the case o a bill payable in New Zealand being drawi and accepted in Melbourne -the Stamp Ac ISS'i Amendment Act ISBS was made t< deal with the difficulty. This provides, ii section 12, that btction 7">, sub-sections 2, 3 4, and 5 of the ISS2 Act shall be made t< apply to inland bills as well a3 fo;cign Dill —that is, any bona fide holder can cancel In the case we have just referred to, tin Oddfellows' Trustees v. Pascoe, the defenci was based principally on the contentioi there was really no liability, the account: having become very much involved ; and whilst proceeding with it, Mr Moss, defen dant's counsel, raised the point that tin action must fail, the bill on which the sui! was laid not having been properly can celle.l, and being, therefore, irregular. Or the writ tho form of tho bill was giver, and also of the cancellation of the stamp but this copy did not correspond witl the original, having, in reality, beci cancelled by plaintiff's counsel, who con tended that he was entitled to cancel it The Judge held with Mr Moss in so far thai the stamp had not been properly cancelled but he permitted one of the plaintiffs t< perforin his portion of the cancellation, anc expressed his intention of adjourning the case to allow the other cancellations to b< made if Mr Mosa insisted on the cancella tion being regular. The Chief Justice'! mling, then, amounts to this: that any part) to a bill or any holder of that bill can cance the stamp any time he chooses, even during the course of an action brought t-> recover thi sum named on it, but that no judgment car be entered till the stamps are properly can celled. This, we presume, is now good law in the Colony until it has been reversed bj the Court of Appeal, or a _ number of coir traryrulingshavebeenmadeinotherSuprenu Courts, and so we may now well look intc its effects. The thing that strikes one mosl distinctly at first is tho fact of it at onc< opening the door to ail kinds of frauds or the revenue. It is of course necessary thai stamps of a proper value should be affixed when the bill is completed; but they coult always be left uncancelled, the acceptor oj maker getting them when paid, taking then; off the instrument and affixing them to some others, and so on ad infinitum. Of course there must be collusion between th< parties, but it is not difficult to see thai non-cancellation of stamps could_ easily be come a regular practice, it being alwayi within the power of the holder to do thai when he thought it necessary. A ban! would have no power to cancel unless it hat discounted the bill, and to get over anj scruples on the part of the paying bank the acceptor could always Leave cheques—whicl only require a penny stamp—to take up the bill when matured, and once in his posses sion there is nothing in the law to prevenl his taking tho stamp off and doing what h< likes with it. If such is the law, it is high time legislation was imposed altering it,.ant enacting that some time be fixed when tht stamp must be cancelled ; it should at any rate, lie on its presentation at the collecting bankers.—' West Coast Times.'