STOLEN STAMPS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13482, 8 May 1907, Page 7

STOLEN STAMPS.

ALLEGED UNLAWFUL "DEALING."

V$S & ■'COLLECTOR BEFORE THE COURT.' <:■■ ; o ■'■ .■-.... • '■■.■:■.■■■■".:■■ ■'.'.•■■■ ,-■'■. ':; " [BY TELEGRAPH.— . ASSOCIATION.] - '■■.■..: !■! • ■ • ■ ' r . . Dunkdik, Tuesday. This morning,, "before .. Mr. Widdowson, " S.M., William Lawrence Hooper was. changed with "..'having .unlawfully dealt in stamps without being duly licensed under the Stamp Act, 1882. / The stamps in question are official stamps now used by the Government Departments instead of ■'the old franking system: Mr. Fraser appeared for the ' police and Mr. White defended, a plea of not guilty being entered. : . ~,> Mr. Fraser stated that for some'time the • detectives had been, on the lookout for cer- ; : tain stamps which had been ■'■ stolen from -. ' the General Post .Office, Wellington. In : ; the course of investigations Chief-Detective - / Herbert visited defendant's place of busi- ■; ness and had some talk about stamps in general with the defendant. The Latter '~',,, •/ produced ,Ms stamp-book, and. when "the j leaves were -flitted over the chief ;[ detective noticed a couple of sheets of un- " used official; stamps. •He said nothing at v the moment, but later said casually,• " Turn '< back to the official stamps." Defendant ,{ said, "I did .not- intend you should have V seen those stamps, but I know you will •-"'not say anything about them. They are !, not supposed to be- sold." The detective took possession of the stamp*. Defendant 'said 'ho' had legal advice that he was not : prevented from having these stamps in his ' 'possession, and that, he did not purchase "■[ 'them from a Government servant, and fur- ' ther, that the vendor was no more liable . ' than Was he. It was added by defendant i i that the vendor was a sort of semi-Govern- ;; ment official. Later he wrote to the chief ■ I detective demanding the return of the : stamps, and stating that he would be held ■ | liable should defendant miss a , market. The Teal question to, be decided was whei ther . defendant was a dealer. The letter to the chief detective, counsel submitted, . proved this point. Defendant wrote that .)" his property had been illegally seized, and i.": ' {.hat he would hold the seizer liable should I he miss a market. This showed an intention of sale, and therefore defendant was a dealer. ." Mr. White contended that if there had been anything' in the Gazette notice providing that. the purchaser of these official stamps unused must- get them in his possession dishonestly, a charge to that effect would have been brought in the present case. The fact was that the Department was in a quandary. It saw that it could not proceed under the Gazette notice and so took this indirect method of " dealing without a license." He. submitted that "dealing" tinder the Stamp Act could -not. niean "buying with the intention'of sell- - ' ing." Dealing was not complete until a sale took place. As regarded the letter upon which the prosecution relied, he sub- ■ mitted that no conviction could be record'ed because of that. The letter merely : evinced ah intention to sell, and the magistrate could not in a case like this convict on presumption that dealing meant buying : and selling goods as a commodity. Ail stamp' dealers in Great "Britain and France ; ' were in the' same position as Mr. Hooper. Not one held a license. " " The magistrate reserved his decision.. .