Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BREACH OF THE STAMP ACT.

At the R.M. Court, Hawera, on Wednesday, before C. A. Wray Esq., R.M., Dr Keating, of Patea, was charged upon the information of Sergeant-major Goodall with having, on the 9th March, 1883, written a receipt for £5 ss, received from Mr C. H. McCnfchan, the same being liable to stamp duty, but not stamped. Mr Hamerton appeared for defendant, and admitted that the document in question was written by his client, but. contended that he was not legally guilty of the offence charged. The Sergeant-major contended that the document was clearly a receipt and an offence against section 121 and following sections of the Stamp Act, 1882, and that had defendant consented to pay the fine of £5 imposed by section 125, the receipt could have been stamped afterwards, and the case would not have been brought to court. Mr C H McCutchan deposed that the defendant attended him professionally one evening, and looked in the next morning, for which he charged £6 6s ; thought this was too much , and sent him a cheque for £5 ss, and received the receipt produced a few days afterwards (March 9tli)- A letter accompanied the receipt which he thought very impertinent, if not libellous. Constable Tapp deposed that on the 6th instant he served defendant with the suiymons in this case, who said, after reading it, that if what was, charged in the summons was an offence, he was guilty, but he thought it was not, as he had not settled the claim, but merely acknowledged receiving £5 5a on account. Mr Hamerton contended that the document was in reality not a receipt, but a statement of accounts as between the 2* parties, and although it gave credit for *!> £5 ss, was not a receipt. The Magistrate : There can be no doubt it is an acknowledgement, and therefore a receipt. The matter can bp referred to the Commissioner of Stamps, if required. Mr Hamerton : I prefer to abide by thq decision of this Court. Fined £5 and costs, £2 Os. The following is a copy of the receipt. —»Patea, March /L 9th, 1883. Mr C. H. ' McCutchan, Hawera, To TV. F. Keating, M.D. To professional attendance on Christmas Day, 1882, and consultation with Dr Richards on the day following, £6 6s. 1883, March 9. Cr by cash on account, £5 os. Balance, £1 Is.”— Siar.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PATM18830427.2.15

Bibliographic details

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1027, 27 April 1883, Page 3

Word Count
397

BREACH OF THE STAMP ACT. Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1027, 27 April 1883, Page 3

BREACH OF THE STAMP ACT. Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1027, 27 April 1883, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert