£200 FINE

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1929, Page 6

£2OO FINE

USE OF CANCELLED STAMP. fßy Telegraph—Press Association). f. ; V DUNEDIN, July 17. A- difficult question which was put to M^ : J. IE "Bartholomew, S.M., id fhe,flS>licc/-Court this., morning, was whether a stamp which had been placed on”a parcel by a stamp dealer had been previously cancelled or not. AA’illiam Lawrence Hooper was charged with (fraudulently fixing or placing upon a postal packet a postage stamp which had been removed from some other postal packet, cover, paper, of other ’ material. He was represented by Atj'/B. S- Irwin, and pleaded not guilty. Defendant, in evidence, said that he was a. buyer of used and unused stamps. Lately he had been almost deluged with stamp collections in books containing both used and unused stamps. He got a parcel from a lieignbour to post and he said it -would cost about 2s. He submitted a stamp to his two head girls, and he noticed that the stamp was a little faded and slightly worn at one corner. There was an infinite variety in tlie shades ol the stamps. A stamp slightly soaked iii hot water was inclined to become lighter in shade. On the hack of the par i ii.ar tamo there was little gum. \V ti . ss die .. Li e attention of the man at the counter to the stamp, and he fo'vd nn Ii"-' wrong with it. AY hen witness •’listed the parcel he was quite convince,.! that the stamp was good. There were very careful in the office.

, His AA’orship said accused was charged with having fraudulently used a preyiously-.ca-m el led stamp. There seemed to be a, doube defence—first, that the stamp had not been previously used, and was genuine; and, second, tliat Hooper acted quite bona fide. Evidence that tlie stamp had been previously cancelled had been given in Very minute detail, and, on the other •liand, evidence had been given by two printers who criticised the evidence given by the postal < ffieials, and disagreed with them. He did not think the very explicit and detailed evidence of the postal officials had been met by the witnesses for the defence. Chief Detective Cameron handed over a list showing seven convictions for .previous- offences. His AA’orship said that in view of the accused’s record, lie did not know if he was justified in dealing with the case by way of a monetary penalty. Accused seemed to .have a mania for this class of offence. On this occasion a -monetary penalty would be imposed. but.it 'must be a heavy one. Accused would be fined £260 and costs. A week was allowed to make payment.