USED POSTAGE STAMPS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19996, 13 January 1927, Page 2

USED POSTAGE STAMPS.

AFFIXED TO PACKAGES

local dealer charged.

DEFENDANT FINED £125. William Lawrence Hooper was charged before Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M., at the City Police Court yesterday morning with having, on November 16 last, at Dunedin, fraudulently fixed upon a postal packet a postage stamp which had already been used, and which had been cut on or removed from some other postal packet cover. There were five other charges against defendant, two of the alleged offences having been committed on the same date, and the other three on November 18, December 1, and December 13. , „ Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for defendant. who pleaded not guilty. Chief Detective Cameron, who conducted the prosecution, said that the facts, briefly, were that defendant was a dealer in stamps, and traded as Wilcox, Smith, and Co., Dunedin. On November 16 last three packets had been posted by defendant, and each packet was stamped with used stamps. On November 18 another packet was posted bearing used stamps, and the offence was repeated on December 1 and 3. He asked his Worship to inspect the exhibits, and began to refer to a statement made by defendant when Mr Irwin suggested that the statement be put in, this course being followed. Samuel Woods, clerk at the Chief Post Office, Dunedin, said that on November 16 last he received from defendant a packet (exhibit 1), and he noticed defects, and drew the attention of the supervisor to them. The stamps were still in the same condition as when they were received. The stamps appeared to have been previously used. To Mr Irwin: The stamps wore cancelled by witness. Frederick Herbert Matthews, clerk at the Dunedin Post Office, gave similar evidence as to other exhibits. John Alexander Reekie, post office official, gave evidence as to other stamps. He said he did not examine the stamps, but passed them on to the supervisor. To Mr Irwin: He noticed a bit nicked out of a 6d stamp, and also that the 4s stamp was somewhat paler than usual with the issue. John Parker, post office clerk, gave evidence as to a 9d and 4d stamp. It was still in the same condition as when received. One of defendant's servants passed it in. George Clark, assistant supervisor at the Post Office, said he had examined three of the exhibits, and the stamps had been previously used. Some of them had double perforations. Mr Irwin: How is it they got through the post so lightly marked, if they had been through the post before? Mr Bundle: All stamps are not heavily marked. Chief Detective Cameron: It is because they were lightly marked that they were used a second time. . ' Leslie Faulkner Smith, post office clerk, said he had examined the stamps, and fave detailed evidence as to the markings, le examined the stamps under a magnifying glass. A dealer in stamps should have noticed the marks. Frederick William Penlington, chief postmaster, Dunedin, corroborated the previous evidence, and gave it as his opinion that the stamps had been previously used. Mr Irwin said all the facts had been admitted by defendant quite frankly, and he had taken the responsibility for posting the packets. The stamps had been on parcels or registered letters. Defendant had had to go before a post office official himself to sign and send the packages away, and was it likely he would go before a postal official when using stamps he had reason to believe had been previously used ? If the things had been posted in the usual way he (Mr Irwin) did not see how the matter could have been discovered, but defendant had posted the letters and parcels himself. He was in a large way of business, and very often got new stamps, and it was usual to use these unused stamps. If defendant believed they had been used he was guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but under the Post Office Act it must be fraudulent. With the ordinary person a mistake could easily be made m a ease of this kind. Hooper would state that the stamps had been taken from collections, and he would say that he believed the stamps had not been used before. Defendant said in evidence that he had been a stamp dealer for a great many years. Ninety per cent, of the stamps that came in were unused stamps. He believed that the stamps mentioned in the charges were unused when ho used them. He and his assistant were very careful over the stamps. He examined the stamps through a magnifying glass before ho used them. To Chief Detective Cameron: Witness did not suggest that anything was done to the stamps after they got into the Post Office. He did not impute anything. He did not discover any marks on the stamps. If he had he would not have used them. On the marks being pointed out to him by the detectives he admitted that the stamps had been used. The stamps had been sent to him as a collection. He did not think it necessary to submit them for inspection. There was no variation in the colour between these and unused stamps. Johnston M‘Ara, president of the Philatelic Society, said he had examined the stamps through the post office’s magnifying glass and that used by. Mr Hooper, and tie expressed the opinion that the markings were clearer through the former glass than through the latter.. In one or two cases he formed the. opinion that the mark was not a cancellation mark. It was difficult to form an opinion. A smudge might be made, with a dirty finger. In one or two instances he expressed the opinion that there was a trace of marks. . To Chief Detective Cameron: He could see marks in some cases. He would, have used them, with perhaps the exception oi the 4s stamp. On looking at the stamps exhibited through ordinary glasses. John Thomas Callis also gave evidence, stating that he could not tell that the stamps had been used previously. Alfred Eeclcs gave it as hie opinion that some of the stamps were slightly soiled or had dirty smudges on them. In one case there appeared to be a fiscal mark. To Chief Detective Cameron: He did not think any of the marks would arouse suspicion unless there was more" than an ordinary scrutiny made. He would have no hesitation in using any of the stamps himself. Mr Bundle, in giving his decision, said the evidence for the prosecution was admitted by defendant; that different packages had been posted by him, or on his behalf; and that the stamps on those packets had been put on in his place of business and had come from collections he had purchased The evidence for the prosecution given by different postal ofricials was that after receiving the stamps they wore still in the same condition as when they were received, apart from the question of cancellation on some of the stamps. The main evidence for the oro seoution had been given by Smith and Penlington. Smith was the inquiry clerk and had examined all the six exhibits, and had given reasons, m detail, for his opinion that the stamps had been previously used. For the defence evidence had been given by M Ara Eccles, and Callis. Mr Bundle proceeded to comment on this evidence, and, continuing, said that there was a distinct difference between the evidence given tot the prosecution and for the defence. One must,” said the Magistrate, “look upon the matter from a reasonable point of view, and I have not the slightest doubt that certain of these stamps are used stamps.” There was, however, he said, a doubt about charges two and five, aid those would be dismissed. Charge five was dated December 1, and on November 16 there were three charges, one of whicn would be dismissed. With regard to t.;e other charges, defendant having an expert knowledge of stamps, he (the Magistrate) could not imagine that he could possibly have made a mistake. He proposed to convict defendant on these charges. Chief Detective Cameron here said. that he had been requested by the Chief Post master to press for the maximum penalty in these charges. Hooper had been causing the Postal Department considerable trouble in examining packages posted by him. They had had all to be carefully examined, and there was no way of estimating the extent to which the country had been depleted of revenue. As his Worship would see, all these packages had been posted within 17 days. Not only that, but it had to be borne ia mind

that defendant had had previous lessons taught him in that court. He had been convicted and fined _ £5 for a similar offence on one occasion, and had on a second occasion been convicted and 'ived the maximum amount of £SO. So defendant was not a man in whose case leniency could bo urged at all. He tad had his warning. He was dealing with stamps continually, and still persisted in a system of using these already ■ used stamps. Mr Bundle said be quite agreed with what had been said On the first charge defendant would he fined £SO. and costs (7s), and on each of the other three charges he would he fined £25. The tot'J " - aacounted to £125.