ALLEGED EVASION OF STAMP ACT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 60, 4 December 1919, Page 10

ALLEGED EVASION OF STAMP ACT

■ CASE AGAINST LANDLADY DISMISSED. I A ease of some interest to property owners came before Mr. W. G. liiddell, S.M., at tho Lower Hutt magistrate's Court yesterday, when a charge against Isabella Moberg, that, on September 6, at Lower Hutt, on receiving the payment of £i, a receipt for which would lie liable for stamp duty, she did divide the 6aid amount with intent to cv/ido the duty. The charge- was laid under section 118, sub-section B of the Stamp Duties Act, which made it an offence to separate or divide an amount exceeding >£2 with intent to evade tho duty. Senior-Sergeant Bird prosecuted, and Mr. Bunny appeared for tho defence. Mrs. Moberg had let .a houso to Airs. Mary Ann Chittenden at a rental of lis. a week, the rent to be paid monthly. This had been done and receipts given,, in a rent book (produced). Subsequently tho rent had been raised to IBs. pel' week, and the monthly payments were each entered' in tho receipt book in two separate amounts of 325. each, no stamps being affixed. The defendant counsel's contention was that she was entitled to separate the amounts paid on each occasion, and to givo separate receipts to' each week's rent. If that were so she was entitled to separate tho amounts, into thoso due for. any number of weeks. He cited the decision of Mr. F. V. Prazcr, S.M., in the case Police v. Duncan, where several amounts had been added together and totalled.at the bottom of a column, and a rubber stamp impressed opposite the total, thus making one document instead of several separate receipts, which was therefore liable to duty. And tho decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M. (Police v. Frost), given in Wellington, m support of the proposition that receipts given separately wero not liablo to duty. He read an extract from "Alpe's Law," quoted in this case, which stated that "an account of money ex]>ended in tho purchaso of provisions, etc,, by a lodging-house keepor for his lodgers for which lie is to be repaid may bo separated from tho amount payable for. rent and extras without incurring tho penalty imposed by section 103, sub-section (3). If money amounting in the wholo to £2 is paid upon separate accounts, or for weekly subscriptions or rents, separate receipts may be given." Marv Ann Chi ttenden gave evidence as to the"monthly payment of the rent, and her son Ralph Chittenden told of the particular payment which caused tho case to bo brought boforo the Court, lie luid gone to defendant to pay an amount of JM and had asked for a stamped receipt. Defendant said she had no stamiM and retained tho book anil money, declining to return either until she had receipted tho book. Witness called tho police to assist him to recover either tho book or the money. Constable Frost went to Moberg's at the request of Chittenden, and whilo there saw the book, which was not stamped, and took possession of it. His Honour, in dismissing tho information. said that at first sight tho receipt for tho ,£4 would appear to bo an offence, but it was not so. There wero cases where tho amount could bo divided ami defendant was not liable for dividing them. He referred to the ense whore tho amounts had been totalled making one document, and said that if this had not been dono the amounts would have been separate and the case dismissed. There might bo a. doubt as to whether defendant was within her rights in-adding two amoynts together, but. lie thought that even if entered in a lump sum of JM she would not ho liable. The information was dismissed.