The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-10 00:00:00

THE NEW PENNY STAMP FOR RECEIPTS

AND DRAFTS ON DEMAND.

(From, the Economist.)

We have several letters before us, raising a number of
points in relation to the application of the new penny
stamp, which for convenience we will thus classify :-
1. Does the new act render it imperative to give and
take receipts for all payments of 2/. and upwards ?

2. Whether a stamp receipt is required for a payment
made in money when an immediate exchange of the
goods and money take place, or when goods are bought
over the counter ; and if this be so how far the rule
would extend to transactions of a more continuous na-
ture, such, for instance, as an hotel bill discharged on
leaving, or the immediate payment of the last of any
series of deliveries included iu one purchase !
3. Whether for a payment into a bank to the credit
of a customer of that bank by a third party, it will be
required that a stamp receipt be given ?
4. Whether a receipt for a payment into a banker's by
a customer, be accounted for only to the same person
who pays it in, which shall name a time for the repay-
ment—for example, "to be accounted for six days after
notice, or demand"—may be upon plain paper, the
same as when no specific term is named for the re-
payment ?

5. Whether receipts for debts discharged by bills o
exchange, or stamped cheques payable "to order" and
" on demand," require to be on stamped paper ?
6. Whether stamps are required for receipts for Post-
office order s of 21. to Si. or not ?
First, then—Under the new act, as under the present
law, it will be perfectly option 4 with those who pay
moneys whether they take receipts or not. There is no
penalty for not doing so. But if receipts in any form
are given, they must be on stamped paper ; and it is not
likely, when so moderate a sum as one penny is charged
that any one will not avail himself of such facility of
having in his possession receipts for all moneys which he
pays, in the chance of their being required.
Second—Payments for purchases over the counter,en
made at the time, or for hotel bills, if receipts are taken
at all (which we have already said is entirely
samei as
optional),
will require to be taken on stamped paper, the_.
any other payment, when the amount is for 2i. or.
.up-
wards. But nothing will be more simple than
dfosr
readysu
keepers and hotel-keepers to keep bill
heads
stamped with the penny stamp on which the account will
be made and the receipt given. Every. such receipt
given on plain paper will expose the shopkeeper or hotel-
keeper to severe penalties.
Third—A receipt for a payment
of deposit to be accounted for, whethereinto a bank by way
expressed
a() ti to
h interest
bereceived
of, or by the hands of any or
not, provided the same be not x
other
than the persons to whom
for, may be given on plain
paper, When money
the same is to be accounted
is
paid into a bank by a third
party, as p
our correspondent, it is not imperative
j that the banker-
give a receipt at all, and it is very
usual eui:ebay our
aitlel
give no reeeTt ; but if a receipt is
given, it will upon the form of it, whether it
ought to be a stamp or not. If the receipt simply states,
"Received to the account of John Smith (he being the
custorner of the bank, to whom the banker is alone again
to account for it), the sum of one hundred pounds," it is
obvious that it would be exempt ; the person paying the
money would be regarded simply as the agent of John
Smith, and no discharge of any debt would be given.
But if the person paying the money into the bank
wished the receipt given in such a form that it would
serve as a discharge of a debt due by him to the party
on whose behalf it was paid in—that is, if the receipt ran
thus :—" Received of IVitliam Thompson to the account of
John Smith, the sum of one hundred pounds"—it is ob-
vious it would not come under the exemption, but would
require to be stamped. In the former case the receipt
would not express that the sum was received of any
other than the person to whom it was to be accounted
for (which is the condition of the exemption), and could
not, in fact, be used as a receipt or discharge of a debt
from William Thompson to John Smith ; while the
latter would express the same to be received from a dif-
ferent person than the one to whom it was to be ac-