STAMPING DUPLICATE RECEIPTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 241, 16 October 1906, Page 5

STAMPING DUPLICATE RECEIPTS.

LAW TO BE AMENDED.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON Monday. A deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, which waited on the Minister in charge of the Stamps Department today pointed out that if the stamping of duplicate receipts was insisted on it would prove very costly, burdensome, and irritating to the commercial community. This would be especially so in the case of shipping and insurance companies. For years past the practice had been not to stamp duplicate receipts, and they could hardly believe that it was ever the intention of the Legislature that duplicate receipts should be stamped. They earnestly hoped that the law would be immediately amended. It was mentioned that the deputation did not wish it to be understood that duplicate receipts were to be accepted as legal proof of payment. The whole question was purely one between the branches and head offices of business houses. The Minister said ho appreciated the points made, by the deputation. As a matter of fact, ho had drafted the following new clause to a bill at present before the committee of the House:— " Whore, pursuant to any custom of trade receipts which are given in sets, it shall be sufficient if only one of the set is stamped, provided that the parts not stamped be clearly and distinctly marked at the time when the original receipt is given showing that they respectively form part of the set. Any person is liable to a fine not exceeding £50 who gives any receipt purporting to be one of a set without seeing that one of such set is duly stamped, or who gives any receipt purporting to be one of a set that is not in fact one of a. set." The Minister said he quite agreed with the deputation that the Legislature never intended that anything but the original receipt should be stamped. Any other course would only lead to friction and annoyance. The question of stamping agreements outlined in the bill before the House was also referred to. Mr. Carroll said this matter was also under consideration by the committee at present engaged on the bill, and he thought the deputation would be perfectly satisfied when the bill emerged from Committee.