DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4225, 11 September 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, September 11. (Before His Honor Judge Bathgate.)

Studding v. Barton.— At to-day’s sitting .Judge Bathgate delivered judgment herein as follows :

In this case the preliminary objection has been taken that, the bill of exchange sued upon is unstamped ami cannot, ho looked at. The bill has adhesive stamps affixed thereto, hut these are cancelled by the drawer. The S:amp Act. of 1870, s ction s,Squires that in the case of bills of exchange the acceptor shall sign his name across the stamp, and in default thereof “ the stamp shall he of no avail.” The Stamp Act, 1572, allows the signature of the person required !\y law to cancel the adhesive stamp to he written on or across the stamp, but it does not otherwise vary, «brt gate, or repeal the oth section of the Acs of li7o. The stamp on the hill of exchange not being in any way signed or written upon by the acceptor, I am of opinion that in terras of the Siatute the stamp is of no avail, and accordingly, I cannot look at the bill, it being unstamped. This objection being, in my opinion, fatal, it is vmnec'ssavv for me to go into the other points raised or into the merits. This point is of some importance, ns the enactment in the Act of 1870 is repeated in the Consolidation Act of 1875. Plaintiff non-suited, with costs.