IS A CHEQUE A RECEIPT REQUIRING A STAMP?

Evening Star, Issue 2936, 17 July 1872, Page 2

IS A CHEQUE A RECEIPT REQUIRING A STAMP?

IMPORTANT DECISION. In the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, on July 11, Mr R. W. Fereday, solicitor, appeared to answer an information charging him with having, on the 30th April last, written and signed a cheque for the payment of money—to wit, L 59 10s lOd— upon paper without the same being first duly stamped, and contrary to the Stamp Act Amendment Act, 1869. Mp Jameson prosecuted on the part of the General Government, and Dr Forster defended.

The giving of the cheque, its receipt without stamp, ami its being cashed, were admitted : the defence being that as the receipt given was for a cheque and not for a sum of money, the stamp was not required Mr Fercday’s counsel contended that within the law of' New Zealand a cheque was net money, and he wished to draw the attention of the Bench to a decision in the case of Moore v. Borthrock (5 B. and C,, 1), in which it was held that a cheque or draft was merely an order for the payment of money, and not money. That was before the passing of the English Stamp Act, 55 George HI., c, 8-1, wheieby a cheque was expressly made money for certain purposes. The new Stamp Act, 1870, repeated the clause which did that, and thus it would be seen that whilst the common law said that a cheque or draft was not money, the Legislature had made it money for certain purposes. In the New Zealand stamp law there was no such pro\ision either in the Act of 1806 or in the Amendment Act of 1860. Une point which he wished to impress upon the Bench was, that when a document was given, not in discharge of money, it did not require to be stamped, and that in the case of receipts given for cheques, no stamps were required, except where the law, as in England, made cheques money for certain purposes. Mr Foreday said distinctly that he did not take that cheque as payment, but’ simply as an order for payment of money.

To meet a possible argument on the part of the Crown that this was an evasion ot duty he cited the dicta of Lords Cranwortli, Lj ndhurat, Knight-Brnco, and other judge., maintaining the right of the subject to escape liability to stamp duty if he can , a d that when he does so, he rightfully avoids, Without wrongfully evading, a burden Ihe learned counsel having quoted from Lrant on Banking, p. 78-9, in proof that a cheque alone was not evidence of payment unless it was produce 1 cancelled, concluded by submitting that Mr Fcreday was cutiJcd to the decision of the Court in lus favor. Mr Bowen, R.M , poit je nod.giving * decision till Thursday, when he dismissed the case, saying that the acknowledgment of receipt of a cheque cannot he regarded as a discharge, nor is it a note, memorandum, or -writing for the payment of money, as provided for in section 15 of the Stamp Act, 1869.