SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2163, 11 April 1908, Page 3

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.

TEA COUPON CASE. • THE APPEAL UPHELD. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday tlio judgment of Mr. Justico Chapman was rend by Mr. AV. A. Barton, S.M., in tlio above caso, as follows: AVilliam Brady,'appellant; William Mnddern, respondent. Mr. G. Stock appeared for appellant, and Mr. J. W. Nolan for respondent. “Tho appellant sold packets of tea “Tlie appellant sold packets of tea on each . of which was printed, as part of tlio wrapper, a ‘coupon’ in the following words: ‘This coupon represents halfpound weight of Book Gift Tea. Consumer may purchase tea in Jib and lib packets as required, save the coupons, and when they have acquired six lib or twelve Jib coupons, they are entitled to exchange them for any book in the catalogue that is given aivny with 61b of tea.’ Tlie book was to bo supplied by the vendor of the ten. Thoro was no third porson. The Magistrate convicted tho appellant under tlio Trading Stamps Abolition and Discount Stamp Issue Act 1900. Ido not think that, the convic-. tion can be sustained. The coupon question to come within that Act, must refer the holder to a trading stamp company to which ho may resort to have the coupon honored. The trading stamp company is a company or person who supplies any trading stamps to any trader and undertakes to redeem the same by giving or delivering to the holder thereof -any money or goods. There is nothing of the sort here. Tho vendor himself undertakes to honor the coupon, which is not the scheme at which tho legislation is aimed. I think, moreover, that another point made by appellant’s counsel stands in tho way of conviction. A ‘trading stamp’ -is defined to bo something ‘which entitles tho holder thereof to demand and receive from any trading stamij company any money or goods.’ This coupon gives no such right. It must be presented with six or twelve others to establish that right qven against the vendor. Tho mere act of supplying a coupon having no value in itself does -not therefore come within the terms of the Act. As I had an impression that I had already >at an earlier date expressed the opinion that such a scheme as this was not touched by the Act, I told counsel that I would defer, judgment until I had discussed the matter with other Judges. I have since done so, and they agree with the above conclusion. Appeal allowed, with £5 os costs, and disbursements^” STEWART v. WAIROA COUNTY ■ COUNCIL. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. Judgment was also read in this case, in which Jessie Aitkenhead Stewart had proceeded against the AYairoa County Council for trespass. The verdict of Mr. Jusncc Chapman was to the effect that the roadway an question had been dedicated to the public, and judgment was accordingly given for the defendant-, with costs on- the lowest scale.