UNSTAMPED RECEIPTS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 234, 27 June 1919, Page 3

UNSTAMPED RECEIPTS

INTERESTING RESERVED JTJDGMEN'S. An interesting reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. P. V. Frezer, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, concerning unstamped receipts for rent. Tho case was one in which the police prosecuted H. W. Frost, dentist, of Wellington, on two informations charging him with signing receipts,liable to duty without being duty stamped. The defendant lei: a house to a tenant at a weekly rental of 30s. On two occasions,' November 2, 1918. and December 8,-1918, the tenant paid to the defendant two sums; ; one of i'G and the other of .£7 10a., in satisfaction of four and five weeks' rent respectively. Those payments' were acknowledged by the defendant in the tenant's book but in neither case was a receiptstamp affixed and cancelled. The defendant's contention was that he was, entitled to separate amounts on each occasion, and to give separate receipts for each week's rent. Counsel had Telied on a decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., given last year, in support of the proposition- that receipts so given wore not liable to duty. His Worship, however, could not find any authority for tl\iß 'view,'-except' a statement in AlpeVLa'iv of Stamp Duties, a section of which stated that an account of money expended in the purchase of provisions, etc., by a lodginghousc-koeper for his lodgers, for which ho is to be repaid, may lie separated from tho amount payable for rent and extras, without incurring the penalty imposed by section 103 of the English Act. If money amounting in tho whole to .£2 is paid upon, separate accounts or for weekly subscriptions or rent's, separate receipts may be given. Continuing, His Worship said that in the 1 present cases-.-the question appeared to be "Has the defendant given separate receipts?" What he did was to enter in the rent-book each week's rent as a separate item on a separate line. He initialled each line and the amount pnid had been totalled at the foot of the money column, and a rubber stamp bearing the date of payment had been impressed opposite the total. Defendant's intention was. no doubt, to give senarate! receipts for each week's' rent, but he actually lave one receipt for £1 10s., and another for .EG. In each ease the set of entries made, one document, and the fact that it was initialled in four or five place 3 instead of one did not make it four or five receipts. There was judicial authority for the statement that duty is payable on the document, and not'on the'transaction. The defendant should have affixed a receipt-stamp when he acknowledged the reeeint of tho two lump sums. The defendant must be convicted, but as His Worship was satisfied with his bona fides, lie did not propose to impose any penalty. A crinviction was accordindy recorded, and defendant was ordered to pay costs, amounting to 15s. on each case. At the hearing Mr. J. A. Scott appeared for tho defendant.