ARE I.O.U.'s LIABLE TO DUTY?

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 107, 14 March 1868, Page 4

ARE 1.0.U.'s LIABLE TO DUTY?

To the Editor, of the Marlborough Express. Sib, —About twelve months ago a party was fined £6O for giving an unstamped 1.0. U., by the Resident Magistrate at Hokitika. The schedule to the Stump Duties Act, 1866, mention Bills of Exchange and Promissory JVotes, but not I.O.U ’s j and unless the body ot the Act expressly declare that an LO.U. shall be deemed a prommissory note, nothing can be more certain titan that an 1.0. U. is free from stamp duty. There is a well-known rule that penal

enactments are to be construed strictly; that is, that their meaning is not to be extended beyond what they clearly express, and an 1.0. U is not a promissory note, but simply an acknowledgment of debt. A promissory note passes by indorsement, an 1.0. U. does not; there are two forms. One, 1.0. C.D. the sum of [ ].—A.B. This is simply an acknowledgment of debt by A.B. to C.D. and would not pass by indor.-emeut. The other is simply—l.O.U. the sum of [ ]. —A.B. This, by a recent decision in England, is recoverable by the holder for the time being, the U it was held referring to him. There is a wide difference between an acknowledgment of debt and a promissory note. A simple acknowledgment of an account by a debtor by writing at the foot—‘‘examined, correct” — would be evidence against him, and make him liable. The same would be the case whore there were cross accounts, and a balanced account signed by one party acknowledging a balance due, No one ever supposed that such documents were liable to stamp duty, yet they, equally with an 1.0. U., are recoverable. They are written admissions of debt. Certainly the simple words—“ 1.0. U. the sum of [ ]. —A. 8.,” have also the effect of a promissory note payable to bearer on demand, yet while promissory notes in England were liable to stamp duty fourteen years ago, the 1.0. - was not; in short, although an 1.0. U. is recoverable, it is not a promissory note, and nothing less than an, express act of the Legislature can make it one. The question lies in a nutshell. Does the Stamp Act of New Zealand declare that an 1.0. U. shall be deemed to he a promissory note ? If it it does not, then the conviction by the Hokitika bench would have been quashed on appeal. As few people are aware of the decision of the Hokitika bench, the practice of giving 1.0.U.'s on unstamped paper is very common, and the question is pretty sure to arise again. If either yon or any of your readers will answer the question—Doe* tho New Zealand Stamp Act make any reference to 1.0. you will be doing a public service? In a recent case at Keswick, in Cumberland, a gamekeeper had seized a gun belonging to a suspected poacher, who sued for damages. Mr. Ingham, the Judge of the County Court, in deciding, said —“I do not myself think that the legislature meant to give the power of seizing a gun in such cases as the present; but even if they did, I feel myself bound by the well-known rule that penal statutes are never to be extended beyond the strict literal wording of tho enactments, and therefore ray verdict will be for the plaintiff.” It is quite plain that it is of no consequence whether the New Zealand Legislature meant to include 1.0. U.’s in the Stamp Act or not. The question is—Have they done so? and unless they have expressly named them, it is plain they are not included. In all probability the New Zealand Stamp Act, like the Coinage Offences, is a copy or adaptation of the English Act. You will recollect the panic got up about the copper tokens, everybody was to be imprisoned for two years for passing tokens, to which as the Act did not expressly refer, it did not apply. I suspect that a similar misconstruction of the Stamp Act has led the Hokitika bench into error. Any person having a copy of ihe Stamp Act 1866, and the Amendment Act 1867, can decide the question for himself, and by making the result public, can confer a benefit on the community.—Yours, &c., Henry Cooke. Blenheim, March 12th, 1868. [I.O.U.’s are not named in the Stamp Act, 1866, or the Stamp Act Amendment Act, 1867. —Ed.M.E.]