THE STAMP ACT AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE.—IMPORTANT CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1306, 23 January 1868, Page 4

THE STAMP ACT AND BILLS OF EXCHANGE.—IMPORTANT CASE.

Gkoboe Tubkbotx, of the firm of W. and Gr. Turnbull and Co., was charged on the iuformation of A'.fred W. Smith (acting for the Conimifßnuer of (Stamps) boforo the Resident Magistrato at Dunedin, on the 21th ut., with an evasion of tho Stamp Duties Act, 1866. Tho information stated, thit on jr about tho 13th of August last, the defendanthad been guilty of signing a. bill of exchange for £460 4s 10d. drawn on one lidward Lewis, of Wanganui, without tho flarno being stumped f jt denoting tho dvty charged thereon under the Stamp Duties Act, W)G, contriry to tho said Act. Tho information was laid under tho 14th section of tho Act, which provid-d that " any person who ehall make sign or issue or cause to be made signed or issued or accept or pay or cause or permit t-> he accepted or paid any bill of exchange draft or order or promissory note or othor note for the payment of money liable to any of the dutif • imposed by thie Act without the e;ime being stamped for denoting the duty hereby churned thereon or who s.hull again uso the same stamp far any other document shall for every Bueh offence incur a penalty of fifty pounds." Tho schedule incorporated with the Act filed the duty at two shillings per cent. On the 13th of August, tho defeuiiunt drew the bill described in the information, 1 which.,.under tho echedule, was liable to a duty of 10a. Instead of placing a etnmp or atampe to that amount upon the bill, the defendant had only done so to the extent of ss, thereby committing a breach of the ]aw. The defendant's clerk stated in evidence that the do-ument produced was the fimt of exoharige of a bill of exchmge drawn upon one Kdward Lewis, of Wunjanui, for the sum of £460 4a lOd. That it was signed by the de ondant as ft member of the firm of W. G. Turnbull and Co. That there were two stamps, amounting in duty to ss, on the documont, and that .each etarap was initialled by'the defendant. Tho witness explained that it formed portion of a larger piece of paper, which consisted of first and second of exchange. That produced being the first. The eecond bore st imps equal in value to that, so that in gro-H, the stamps would repreeent 10a, the full duty. . In negotiating, ooly one draft is paid. The amount would be £460 4s lOd, and not double the sum. The eecond of exchange represented exactly the same amount. It was argued by defendant's attorney that the only que-ition was: Was it legal to divide the duty into two sums instead of ono. The clause of the Act made provision for cho stamping. On turning to tlie schedule it would be seen, first, that the amount fiiod for inland.bills of exohange was.two ehillinge percent. For foreign bills the same duty, was required; bnt the'schedule here. was more explicit, ami suid that if drawn in sets of two, then for every Bill of each set the sum should be divided. The course enacted wiih regard to foroinn biiln had been pursued by the defendant in this instance, and the question was, could.he be made respuiisibie for having done so, there being no provision with respect to inland bills. He contended that the Statute required that a certain amount of duty should bo paid, that that amount had been paid, and th'it, as lie had clearly established that the first and second of exchange were one draft, the defendant was not guilty. He wpuld givq evidence to ehow that what had been done was the every daypractinp, and would then be glad tohear ( that the case wai withdrawn. Mr. Stewart,'manager of th'e'Bank of New South Wales,.cave notice that he. wag in the habit of negotiating bills of oxohange every day. Where there are a .first and.eecond of exchange, they are always negotiated as one draft.. The banks insiet upon having two, where the bill ia' going seaward, for their own protection. The stamp duty is always divided. , Mr. Jackson, Manager of theTJnion Bank, And Mr. Beale,, Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, endorsed the evidence of Mr. Stewart. The latter witness said he had the second of exchange referred to, and knew.that it was stamped. The Magistrate said he had no doubt there had be"n a breach of the law. The eohedule made it plain that there, was a .wide distinction between foreign and inland bills of exchange. It was perfectly silent as

to inland, bills, and it therefore followed that every bill should bear the full amount of stamps.. The strict letter of the law had been departed from, but it could be teen that there had been no intention to evade the duty. He waa sorry that he had no discretionary power with regard to the penalty, which was severe ; but he was sure that if the Government were applied to, the penalty would bo remitted. He would willingly endorse such an application, but he had now no alternative but to Sno tho dofendant £50 and costs. ■ Mr.,Mac3.esey, gave notice of his intention to appeal nftainst tho decision, upon the point that there was no discretion allows 1 to tho Magistrate, us to the amount of ponilty, and that tlie schedule beiuj silent tlie duty could not bo divided. •