OFFICIAL STAMPS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10966, 8 May 1907, Page 4

OFFICIAL STAMPS.

: * " ■. (Per Press Association.) .-' DUXEDIN,: last night. This inclining, before Mr Widdowson, S.M., William Lawrence Hooper was charged with unlawfully dealing in stamps without being duly licensed under "The 'Stamps Act, 1882," to deal in stamps. T.lie stamps in question, are the official stamps. -now 'used by Government'departments instead of tho old franking system. Mr Fraser appeared for the police, aud Mr White defended, a plea of not guilty being entered. These are the facts, as submitted by Mr Fraser : For gome time detectives had been on the look-out for certain stamps which have been stolen from, the General Post Office, . Wellington. In the course of investigations Chief Detective Herbert visited defendant's place 'of .business. He lnid some talk about stamps in general with defeudimt,,niid the latter produced his stamp book. When the leaves Avere being iiitted over the chief detective noticed a couple of sheets of unused official stamps. He said notliing at the moment, but later said, casually, "Turn back to official stomps." Def«aukmt said, "I -did not intend you should have seen those stamps. We will not say anything about them. They are not" supposed to be sold." 'fhe detective took possession of the stamps. Defendant said that he had taken legal. advice that he wae not prevented from having these stamps in his possession, and thaf'lie did not purchase them from a Government servant; and, further, that the, vendor was no more liable- than was he.' He added that the vendor was ' a sort of semi-Govern-ment official. Later defendant wrote" to the Chief Detective demanding the return of the stamps, stating that he wxviLl bo held liable should the defendant niirs a market. The real question torbe dncided was whether defendant was a deader. Tho lctlt-r t,, tlin Chief Defective, uur,\---m/1 submitted, proved this point. Defendant wrote that- liis property had been illegaly seized, aud that he would hold

the seizer liable should he miss a market. This showed an intention of sale, and therefore defendant was a dealer. It was necessary to prove a sale in fact. Chief Detective Herbert giive evide.ice in the direction opened by Mr Fraser. Mr White contended that if there had been anything in a Gazette not ; ce providing that the purchaser of diese .i:licial stamps unused must get them in his possession dishonestly, a charge to that effect could have been brought. In tiic present case the fact was that the Department was in a quandary. I*, saw that it could not proceed under a O.uette notice and so took this nuiitvet method of "Dealing without a Ihenve." He submitetd that "Dealing" uu Ur tW Stamp Act could not mean "Buying with intention of selling." Dealing was v.cl complete xintil a sale took place. In <rder t 0 constitute " dealing there must be I proved an overt act of sale. As regards the letter upon which the prosecution . relied, he submitted tliat no coniviction could be recorded, . because that letter merely evinced intention to sell, and the Magistrate could not in a case like this convict on the presumption that "dealing" meant buying and selling goods as a commodity. All the stamp "dealers in Great Britain and France were in the same position as Mr Hooper I—not1 — not one held! a license. The Magistrate reserved his decision,