UNSTAMPED RECEIPT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5468, 30 August 1929, Page 3

UNSTAMPED RECEIPT.

AN INTERESTING CASE. SMALL FINE IMPOSED. An interesting case was heard before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, when James Edward Hoffman, manager of the Hamilton branch of the Farmers’ Trading Co., Ltd,, was charged with giving a signed receipt liable to duty without the same being duly stamped.

The police explained that J. Rigger, who purchased groceries to the value of £4 Is 3d at the defendant’s shop, was given a cash docket, which was, in their opinion, a receipt. The question was whether the docket was a receipt, and thus Hable to stamp duty. Mr P. Haikness, counsel for the defence, pointed out that his client, who was the manager of the local branch of the Farmers' Trading Company, had been instructed by his head office not to give a stamped receipt for cash sales, whether for £2 or over. While it was net usual +o sign a cash docket, the company’s system ' of delivery made it necessary as an indication to the carrier that the goods had been paid for, and the word “paid” should be written on the docket. Although, on the face of it, the docket was a receipt; it was not intended as such.' Defendant in evidence said that it was his usual custom to give a docket similar to the one produced in cases where cash sales v’ere made. Where cash had not been paid a docket marked “C.0.D.” accompanied the goods. In such cases the carrier collected the money from the customer on delivery of the goods. i

His Worship said he must conclude from the evidence subinited that the docket constituted a receipt, with the name of the vendor and the amount of the sale appearing on it, for the information of the customer. A fine of £l, with costs 10s was imposed.