THE COINAGE OFFENCES ACT, 1867.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 96, 11 January 1868, Page 4

THE COINAGE OFFENCES ACT, 1867.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express,

Sir, —As the 14th and loth Sections of the New Zealand Coinage otiences Act have caused a great alarm in the colony, the following particulars may be interesting. Early in November the Wellington Independent published an article on the Coinage Offences Act, stating that it appeared to impose a penalty on all persons uttering and receiving copper tokens. Shortly after the publication of this article, your own columns contained an acknowledged quotation from the Marlborough Press. The article in question stated that the Coinage Offences Act had made tradesmen’s tokens an illegal tender, and complained bitterly that the Act had been brought into operation too early. Now, considering that tokens never were a a legal tender, this article was not very intelligible. Shortly afterwards, however, the Marlborough Press published a long leading article, in which the Editor commenced by acknowledging that he had in common with most of people in the colony unknowingly been guilty of a misdemeanour under the loth section, by uttering tokens after the Act came into force, but before he had perused it. As ignorantia juris non excusat is a maxim of British law, this was rather a perilous confession. Every person is in theory supposed to be acquainted with the whole of the statute law, and if he trangresses it, a Magistrate is bound to commit, a Jury to convict, and a Judge to sentence him. Even on the face of the 14th and 15th sections as parts of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand, it is clear that they can have no reference to tradesmen's tokens. The describing words of the 14th and 15th sections are in the 14th, “any coin,” and in the 15th, “any false “or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently 4 4 intended to resemble or pass for any of tne 44 Queen’s current copper coin.” Now there is no resemblance whatever between the tokens and the Imperial coppers ; all the tokens issued by New Zealand tradesmen are covered on one side with advertisements. There is nothing like a Queen’s head ; they could not deceive a person unable to read. Perhaps such a person might possibly mistake one of Holloway’s pence for George the IV., but there is really very little resemblance, and Professor Holloway, London, on the obverse, and Holloway’s pills and ointment on the reverse, are not the usual inscription on Imperial coins. So much for resemblance ; then the only point on which there can possibly be any question, is the construction of the words 41 pass f. r.” There is a rule of law that where several words are used in connection with each other, they are to he considered as explanatory of each other, each one noscitur a sociis. Another r ile is t at penal statutes are to be construed strictly. Offences are not to be created by implication Taking these two rales of construction, it is clear that as the Act does not express by name tokens, it does not refer to them. In short, that it would be necessary to prove that the socalled counterfei- coin was calculated to pass for the Queen’s copper coin from its x’esemblance to it, and not simply that it passed as a substitute for it.

Mr. Justice Richmond, in his address to the Grand Jury at Nelson on the 15th November, s ated that the Coinage Offences Act was one of several of the statutes of the mother country adopted last session by the New Zealand Legislature. His Honor stated this Act to be one of little importance in this colony, it is pretty certain that if Mr. Justice Richmond’s attention had been called to the popular misconstruction of ihe Act, he would have been more explicit on this head of his address.

Mr. Justice Johnston, at Wellington, has since been more explicit, aud explained that the law was in no respect changed. Taking the two sections of the Act as Imperial, it is plain that they are aimed at parties counterfeiting the improved copper coin and their accomplices the issuers, aud no one else The coinage of the Imperial Government is of three kinds : gold, silver, and copper—gold being the standard. The gold coin is struck at the Mint on Tower Hill, but on private account. Any person can deliver gold at the Mint to be assayed, and on payment of the assay charge (4d. per oz. ) can have it returned in ingots. If found to be equal to or above the standard, 22 carat (that is 22 parts out of 24 pure gold), he can have it returned to him coined free of expense, the alloy (if any be required) and workmanship being I supplied at public expense In practice, how- ' ever, the greater part of the gold coinage is issued ! on account of the ; Bank of England. By irs ! charter this Bank is bound to'purchase all gold ! presented at and above standard fineness, at the rate of 104 d. per <»£ for standard. This makes nearly £4. 45. for pure g01d.... The (

assay once returned, the value is paid over the Baulc counter The weight of a sovereign being 5 dwts. grs of 22 carat gold, it is clear that the seller receives back his full value from the Bank, as he would from the Mint. The gold coin is a legal tender to any amount throughout the United Kingdom, as is also the note of the Bank of England, in England and Wales, from ail parties except the Bank itself. The silver com also struck at the Mint is issued on account of the Imperial (Government, with an acknowledged profit. Gold being the standard of Great Britain, British silver coin is inferior in value to that of countries in which silver is the standard Eor instance, taking the par of exchange, 25i francs of French, 0r483 dollars of United States silver coinage, contain more pure silver than 20 British shillings. In fact British silver coinage is only a Government token, and is only a legal tender up t<> 40 shillings. In British India where silver is the standkrd, the custom in the Banks is to pay by weight. I once cashed a cheque at the Bank of Bombay for over 6,000 rupees. I was weighed out at one cast of the scale. Being on the point of sailing for Calcutta, and finding it rather heavy, I enquired the change for a draft. On being told one-half per cent, I elected to take 1,000 rupees in cash, and remainder by a draft on the Bank of Bengal. The 1,000 rupees were at once weighed out by a single cast. They consisted of about two-thirds of the East India Company’s rupees with their halves anti quarters, and the remainder of rupees of Native Indian i'rinces witu their halves and quarters. On going abroad I found the 1,000 rupees of mixed coin correct to an ounce. On arrival at Calcutta, 1 found that the native rupee, although a legal tender in the Bombay Presidency, was not so in the Bengal. Tne Bank of Bengal, however, took them from

me- at; a discount of one-half per cent. Lately the Australian sovereign has been proclaimed a legal tender for ten, and the half sovereign for five rupees in British India Either the Company's or the Native half rupee was a better silver coin than the English shilling. The Imperial copper coin is also issued on Government account but struck by contract, generally in Birmingnam. Three bronze pence of Queen Victoria weigh 1 02. avoirdupois, consequently the coin is issued at 4s. per lb, or £448 per ton. The value of the metal cannot be more than Is. per lb, and allowing 3d. for workmanship, makes £l4O per ton. This is certainly a very decent profit. A few years ago the Mint returns showed a profit of over £65,000 for the year on the issue of cupper alone The issues of tokens all give better weight of metal than the Government—Holloway, the best of any—yet he must have a large profit. The Imperial copper coin is a legal tender up to five shillings. It would seem that strictly a legal tender must be not only in current coin within the limits to which each particular description is confined, but that the party receiving is not required to find change, but can require the exact amount. Shortly before the abolition of the toll at Waterloo bridge, a carter called up the toll collector about two in the morning. The collector out of temper, on being offered a sixpence for the toll of a penny, refused change, and after a few sharp words the carter drove round by Blackfriars, and next day laid an information ag-inst the collector for refusing to allow him to pass after a legal tender of the toll, by which he would have incurred a penalty of £lO. The summons was discharged on the ground that the tender should have been made in copper, the stipendary Magistrate remarking that the largest notes of the Bank of England, as well as the gold aud silver coin, were legal tenders for larger amounts than a penny, aud there was no legislation as to how far change could be demanded as a right. This being the case, the Bench could not without assuming the functions of the Legislature decide that change could bo demanded in any case. Next week 1 propose to continue the further consideration of this subject.—l am, &c., Henky Cooke. Blenheim, January 9th, 1868.