SHARE TRANSFERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1918, 24 August 1888, Page 12

SHARE TRANS FERS.

The decision in the case brought against Dt Wanless under the Stamp Act, by which a fine of £20— the minimum allowed by the Act — was imposed on the defendant, is. one of considerable importance to those who are in the habit of dealing in shares. A review of the evidence will, we think, convince any reasonable man that the Bench could not possibly, with any show oC reason, have given any other decision ; but none the less must it be acknowledged that the defendant is being severely punished for an offence so common as almost to have become a custom— and a custom of which the abolition will be very inconvenient. The Act provides that the execution of a transfer of shares which does not show the name of the purchaser written upon it in ink is an offence punishable by a fine of nofc less than £20 nor more than £100. It also pro- ■ vides that such a transfer is void and cannot be made valid by any subsequent Act. In the case in question Dr Wanless signed a blank share transfer of shares on the usual printed form and handed it to his agent, MiGrose, who shortly after sold certain shares and filled in* the other particulars, passing ifc on to the purchaser. A dispute arose and a case was heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, and subsequently sent to the Supreme Court, and the facts came out in evidence. The Crown then interfered to inflict the penalty. Now, the object of the stringent provisions of the Act with respect to blank transfers is obvious. Ifc is quite clear that a stamp duty is payable on each transaction; but as shares are often sold over and over again, if blank transfers could legally pass from hand to hand tbe revenue wotild be defrauded by one stamp being made to cover a number of distinct transactions. The only real defence in this instance was that the transfer was not a complete instrument until it had been tilled in by the agenb who sold the shares, and thafc therefore if the offence were committed ifc was not by Dr Wanless but by Mr Grose. Mr Justice Williams, however, de» cided in respect to the same words in the previous clause (132) that the signature of any one or more of the parties is " execution " within the meaning of the Act, and this is the plain common sense view of the case. Another point raised was that there was no evidence of intent. But Mr Haggifcfc cleaily' showed that intent must be inferred from an act which had a certain effect. Dr Wanless' knew what he was doing, and his agent carried out his intention, which was to sell the shares; and although the revenue was not actually defrauded in this particular oase, it might have been. It was needful that the law should be vindicated and the revenue protected. Dr Wanless is no worse than hundreds of others, but he has had the misfortune to be found oufc and to be made the " shocking ex- " ample." He suffers for the sins of a whole community. It may be well if the decision of the Justices is taken to a higher court ; but it will certainly nofc be safe for anyone to presume on its being reversed. We do not see how the intention of the Act could have been made clearer. No doubt its Trainers thought thafc they were to some extent, acting in the interests of the vendor in making it incumbent upon him to see that the purchaser's name was entered in the transfer; but the effect is likely to be to hamper dealings in shares from one part of the Colony to another, whilst evasion is not easily detected. It should not be difficult to devise some simpler and better way of safeguarding the revenue without giving rise to so much inconvenience, and ifc is highly desirable tbat steps should be taken to amend the Act.