NOT A FINE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19174, 3 December 1927, Page 8

NOT A FINE.

POSTAL OFFICIAL'S CLAIM. (PMSS ASSOCIATIOX TELIGRAU.) WELLINGTON, December 2. J Before Mr Justice Macgregor, in the | Supreme Court, an application was heard for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Post and Telegraph Board of Appeal by James Alexander Elliott, a postal official, who pleaded that he had been fined £lO for. accepting a postdated cheque for £SO in October, 1925. This was one of a series of valueless cheques by which William Smith and Sidney Erne Baume fraudulently secured £lllO, of which £1026 was recovered. Elliott pleaded that he followed the Departmental regulations, and should not have to pay the fine. The Appeal Board refused to proceed with the hearing. The Department set out several grounds why the application should fail, among which was that the £lO was not a fine, but Elliott's share of the missing amount of £B4, which had to be made good by the officials concerned. The Judge said that it was idle to contend that a post-dated cheque should be received as a credit. A postal officer had the same duty as a bank clerk to examine the cheque, and if it was postdated, not to accept it. He did not do so. After accepting the cheque, Elliott was in the legal position that he was liable for replacing £SO, which represented the post-dated cheque. His Honour was bound to say that the £lO was not a fine. Plaintiff had an obvious remedy which might or might not bo successful —to sue the Department. The proceedings were dismissed.