PROSECUTION UNDER STAMP ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 8 May 1907, Page 2

PROSECUTION UNDER STAMP ACT.

Ter Press Association. Dimedin, May 7. This morning, before Mr. Widdo'wson, S.M., Win. Lawrence Hooper wits charged with having unlawfully dealt in stamps without being duly licensed under the Stamps Act, 1882, to deal in such stamps. The stamps ill question are tile oflicial stamps now used by th 6 Government departments instead of the old franking system. Mr. Fraser appeared for the police, and Mr. White defended, a plea of "not guilty" being entered. These are the facts as submitted by Mr. Eraser. For some time detectives have been oil the look out for certain stumps which have been stolen from the General Post OJlice at Wellington. In course of investigations, Chief Detective Herbert visited defendant's place of business. He had some talk about stamps in general with defendant, and the latter produced' his stamp book. When the leaves were being flitted over the chief detective noticed a couple of sheets of unused ollicial stamps. He said nothing at the moment, but later said casually, "Turn back to the ollicial stamps." Defendant said, ''l did not intend you should have seen those stamps, but I know you will not say anything about tlieni. They arc not supposed to be sold." The detective took possession of the stamps. The defendant said that he had legal advice that he was not prevented from having these stamps in his possession, and that he did not purchase them from a Government servant, and further, that the vendor was no more liable than was he. He added that the vendor was a sort, of semi-Government oflicial. Later, defendant wrote to the Chief Detective demanding the return of the stamps, and stating Hint lie would be held liable should defendant miss it market. The real question to be decided was whether defendant was a dealer. The letter to the chief detective, counsel submitted, proved this point. ])etendant wrote that his properly had been illegally seized, and that he" would hold the seizer liable should lie miss a market This an intention of sale, and therefore defendant was a dealer. It was necessary to prove a *ale in fad. ' I

Cliiel Deled ive ilrrlicvt gave evidence in tli<i ilireetion opened by .Mr. I'rascr. •Mr. White contended that if there had been anything in the (lunette notice providing that the purchaser of these ollicial stamps unused must, get, thou in Ms possession dislionestly, a charge to Unit etVect would have been brought. In the present case, the fact, was that the Department was in n (piandry. It. saw that notice, and so took this indirect method it could not proceed under the. daze!to of "dealing without a license." lie submitted that "dealing," under the Stamp Act, could not mean ••buying with the intent ion ot selling." Dealing was not complete until a sale took place. In order to constitute dealing tljere must be proved ail act cif sale. As regarded the letler, upon which llie prosecution relied. he submitted Hint 110 conviction could be recorded because (he letter merely evinced an intention to sell, and ! he Magistrate could not, in a case like this, convict 011 the presumption that dealing meant, buying and selling goods as a commodity. All stamp dealers in llreat J'ritain and France were in the same position as Mr. Hooper. Xot one held a license. Tjie .Magistrate reserved his decision.