ALLEGED BREACH OF STAMP ACT.

Colonist, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11751, 6 October 1906, Page 2

ALLEGED BREACH OF STAMP ACT.

A PALTRY CASE

Yesterday.before Mr H. Eyre Kenny, S.M., Frederick Nelson Jones, saddler, was charged with a breach of the Stamp Act, sections 69, 73, and 78. Defendant, for whom Mr. Harley appeared, pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Dougan stated the case. Mr Jones had sent an account to James Callan, at Westport, and at tbe foot thereof bad written please pay Mr Intermaan, whose receipt would be sufficient. He had received orders to prosecute, the Secretary of the Stamp Department deeming it to be an unstamped order. Mr Jones admitted the account produced was in his own handwriting, and on his billhead form, so he (Sergeant Dougan) had do witnesses to produce.

Mr Harley called —

F. N. Jones- the defendant, who stated the account produced in Court was on one of bis account forms, but he had written the name

"Conlon", but someone unknown to him had altered the name to "Callan". He had understood the debtor's name was Conlon. Mr Intermann, saddler, at Westport, who was his brother-in-law, acted as his

agent generally, and tbe footnote to the account was merely an intimation that the money could be paid to Mr Intermann. There was no intention to give an order to pay. He believed the debtor was now dead, and his account passed into the hands of the agent of the Public Trustee. "

Ma Ha r ley contended that there was not an order to pay, coming under the provisions of the Act; also that the intention of the party accused was an element that must be taken into account by the Court. No one, he asserted, looking at the footnote on tbe account produced could possibly say that it was a .Bill of Exchange. He quoted the cases of My6ts versus Bet, Stamp Commissioner versus Manning & Co., and Little versus Slaekford, in support of his contentions.

The Bench stated the prosecution could not be sustained. There was first the difficulty to get over that

the name on the account had beer altered from Conlon to Callan. He considered also that there was not the slightest indention by defendant to make ati order to jiay. The footnote, he held, was an intimation simply to the debtor to whom the money could be paid, as a matter of convenience to him, a procedure which was often done. He held the defendant was not guilty, information dismissed.