POSTAGE STAMP CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 January 1918, Page 7

POSTAGE STAMP CASE.

Al-LEGE)) USE OP DEFACED STAMP. CHARGE DISMISSED In the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Annie E. Hopson was charged on the information of the police with on or about the Gth day of November, 11)17, fradnlently affixig to o, postal .packet a postage stamp, such stamp having been removed from another postal packet. The charge was laid under the Post and Telegraph Act, I'JOS. Sub-Inspector Hutton pa id the facts of the case were that a letter-carrier had cleared the pillar-box at- the corner of Eliot and Buller streets at 2.45 on s the afternoon of November 0. There, was only one letter in the box, and it was noticed that it bore what appeared to be a defaced stamp. The letter was handed tot the post office officials ami was sent by them to the General Post Office, Wellington, from whom instruction; had been received to take proceedings against the sender of the letter. Mr. R. C. Hughe? appeared for tlie defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Walter Sidney Bennett, letter-carrier, New Plymouth said he cleared the pillarbox at the corner of Eliot and Buller itreets at '2.45 p.m. on November 6. He got only one letter cut o* the box and he noticed the, stamp op it appeared to have been previously used. He took the letter to the chief mail clerk. The letter produced was the one he handed to the mail clerk. In reply to J/fr. Hughes, witness said ho had no one* with him when he cleared the 'box on the date in question. 'He did not know that others who cleared the letter-boxes took boys with them and al-1 lowed them to handle the letters. He was only on clearing boxes as an emergency. Henry Thomas, senior mail clerk, Post flffice, New Plymouth, said he remembered his attention being called toy the previous witness to a letter bearing a istamp which appeared to have been previously used. He saw marks on. the stamp which showed that it had received an impression from a date stamp. In reply to, Mr. Hughes, witness said ho could see what appeared to be the letters "T" and "H." The letters were not larger than those of an ordinary date stamp. To Inspector Hutton: The ?tamp appeared to lipve been torn away from some package. He could not say whether it was from any other package than the one to which it was now attached. Charles H. Burton, chief postmaster, New Plymouth, said the letter produced had been handed to 'him by liig chief clerk. The face of the styimp appeared to bear tfie impression of a date stamp. The back appeared to have been torn away from some envelope. He could not sav whether it had been torn from any other envelope than the one on which it then was. To Mr. Hughes: The stamps for sale were Ifept in a were only handled by the stamp clerk, who made the sales. There were stamps and inking pads on the counter, and it was not impossible for these to come in contact with a sheet of stamps, or for a date stamp to fall into a draw containing stomps and perhaps mark some of them. He had no suspicion of defendant or her family regarding the use of stamps. From his knowledge of the family ho would say they were above suspicion. He submitted some specimens of stamp marks to show the effect of the different stamps u?od. Sub-Inspector Hutton gave evidence to the effect that the letter produced was received by liim from Wellington in practically the game condition as it was then in. The only persons who bad examined the letter besides himself were Mr. Hughes and his witnesses who had seen and examihed the letter than morning. Mr. Hughes quoted the Act, 'ander which the charge was laid to show that the prosecution was required to prove that the stamp had been "got off" another postal package, and hq submitted there waß no evidence to show tliat and the case must therefore 'be dismissed. However, he was anxious, and bo was defendant, to detail her version of the case to the bench so that the matter might be thoroughly cleared up. Annie E. Hopson, Inglewood, said on the 6tli November she was staying with relatives in New Plymouth. On that night she posted ft tetter to her husband, at Tnglcwood. The stamp on the letter was taken from a jar on a mantelpiece of her mother's house. The. stamp was torn from a sheet of stamps. There was no mark on the, stamp when she affixed it to the letter. • To the Bench: The stamp was put on in daylight. To Mr. .Hughes: Witnegs' first intimation regarding the Suggested mis-use of the stamp was in a letter received from the chief postmaster at New Plymouth. On account of that letter she vent to see the postmaster who had suggested that she had used a previously-used stamp. She replied that she would not think of doing such n. thing, and that the stamp had been torn from a sheet of stamps. To Inspector Hutton: She told the Chief postmaster, when the letter was shown to her by Mm, that the stamp looked as if it might have been previously wscd. To the Magistrate: She could not say whether the stamp now ori the letter was the one she put oil. It looked a» though it bad been taken off another letter. There were no marks on the stamp that she put on the letter. Ella M Morgan, lister of defendant, said on the 6th November last her sister was staying with them at her mother s house in Buller street. She remembered telling her sister to help he.--self to stamp., from the mantlepiece. It was S the evening she told her sister to take the stamps. She saw her sister take the stamp and put in on her Mtcr. Nothing was said about the state oi the stamp. She alvvavs kept stamps in hand, because she had many letters to write. The stamps were always kept in a jar on the mantlepiece. There were no used, stamps in the jar that Rne was aware of. Only new stamos were kept in the jar, 4 a?**J ns P e(^or Hutton: She was positive the stamp put on the letter had not been previously used. She remembered the letter being posted. Several letters would be posted at the same time. She could nqt say if the letters were posted the same day they were written. She thougnt the letter in question was .posted in the morning. She could see do-, facuig marks on the stamp bat' did not think it iiad teen previously used. She could not account for tli e marks on the face of the stamp. *■ .Mm H. Hopson, Inglewood. husband of defendant, said he had seen the envelope produced at the Ifofflewood 'Post Office. The post master said thiifi iboy.s>w?r& suspected of taking new stamps off letters and putting on oM ones, and he wanted to catch *He offends. When lie *&gt-

saw tin- envelope the stamp was adhering well to the envelope. Since the present proceedings had been institutedhe had on one occasion scon a boy without uniform on assisting a nostal o/liei;il to clear a letter-box. Tins one without the uniform was taking the letters from the box. To Sub-Tnspector Hutton: The. marks on the stamp were more distinct now. than when he first saw the letter at Inglewood. The Magistrate, in giving his decision. said he had had no doubt as to liia decision after hearing the evdenee of the postal officials as to the possibility of stamps being defaced, and also as to the inability to tell whether the stamp on the letter had been torn from any other package. There was also the evidence of the defence to the effect that the fct.amp was torn from a sheet of new stamps. It was a pity, however, that defendant fliad tried 'to suggest that the letter had been tampered with. The case was dismissed.