second agreement was entered into, in which it was provided and declared that the provision for reference to arbitration contained in the first agreement, should extend to the second agreement, "and to every clause therein contained, in the same manner as if such or the like provision for reference to arbitration, and such or the like agreement for carrying the same into effect, and for obeying and observing the award made in pursuance thereof, had been therein repeated;" and it was held that the clause referred to could not be considered as "annexed" to the new agreement so as to make an increased stamp necessary, and that a stamp adapted to the number of words actually written in the second agreement, without counting the clause referred to, was sufficient. (o) But the contract or clause referred to must, of course, itself be stamped before it can be read in evidence. (p)

Neither do the words "put or indorsed thereon," extend to an indorsement which forms no part of the contract. A mere indorsement, for example, of the names of the executing parties and of the date of the instrument need not be taken into account in calculating the number of words, with a view to the progressive stamp duty, as such indorsement does not in any way control or affect the operation or construction of the contract. "You might as well say that an envelope, on which the names of the parties and date were written, was part of the deed, and therefore required an additional stamp.” (q)

Letters and detached writings and memoranda.-The words of the act providing that where divers letters shall be offered in evidence to prove an agreement, it shall be sufficient if any one of such letters shall be stamped with a 17. 158. stamp, is not confined to letters or agreements between the same parties, or to a correspondence between two parties only. If the letters and documents contain references to each other, or refer to the same subject matter, and together form only one agreement, it is sufficient if any one of such letters, by whomsoever written, is stamped with the 17. 158. stamp. (r) But if the letters and documents do not refer to each other, or to the same subject matter, so as to form on the face of them, when placed in juxta position, one entire transaction and one contract, they cannot be given in evidence under one stamp, for there must in general be distinct stamps for each distinct contract or transaction. (8)

(0) Attwood v. Small, 1 M. & R. 246; 7 B. & C. 390; 3 C. & P. 208 s. c. Sneezum v. Marshall, 7 M. & W. 417.

(p) Turner v. Power, 7 B. & C. 625. Wallis v. Robinson, 4 Ad. & E. 877.

(q) Littledale, J., Windler v. Fearon, 7 D. &

R. 187; 4 B. & C. 663, s. c.

(r) Smith v. Crane, 8 Moore, 8. Heming v. Perry, 2 M. & P. 375. Peate v. Dicken, 1 C. M. & R. 425. Drant v, Brown, 5 D. & R. 584; 3 B. & C. 665, s. c.

(s) Richards v. Franco, Chitty's Stamp Law,

Printed papers and advertisements in newspapers are not, of course, admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving and establishing an agreement without being stamped with an agreement stamp, any more than written documents. (t)

STAMPS on AGREEMENTS operating as ACQUITTANCES and DISCHARGES of SIMPLE CONTRACT DEBTS and DEMANDS.

It is further enacted by the stamp acts, that any note, memorandum, or writing whatsoever, given to any person for or upon the payment of money, which shall contain, or express, or in any manner signify or denote any acknowledgment of any debt, account, claim, or demand, being paid, settled, received, accounted for, balanced, discharged, released, or satisfied

shall be deemed and taken to be a receipt for money within the meaning of the act, and be charged with the stamp duty accordingly. (u) Two written memorandums, one of them being stamped with an agreement stamp, were offered in evidence to establish an agreement, to the following effect: "Mr. T. W. Marriott having discharged the five quarters' rent of my house, amounting to 721. 3s. 9d., I have written off the said sum from his mortgage deed, and will write a receipt on his mortgage deed.-R. S. Jones." "Mr. Jones having written off the sum of 721. 3s. 9d., from his mortgage debt, being five quarters' rent of his house, I hereby discharge this same rent to this 24th day of June, 1841.-T. W. Marriott." And it was held, that as these letters amounted to an acquittance and discharge of a debt, they could not be given in evidence under an agreement stamp, but ought to have been stamped as a receipt at the time they were signed, or within one month afterwards, on payment of the penalty pursuant to the act. (x)

Bare ADMISSIONS and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS not operating as a discharge of a debt or claim, nor amounting to EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT. But a written memorandum or acknowledgment of the receipt of money, or of bills, or chattels, or securities, by way of deposit, does not require a receipt stamp, as it is not given in evidence in discharge of a debt, neither does it require an agreement stamp, as it is a bare admission of a fact, and not " evidence of a contract" within the meaning of the stamp acts, "Which ought," observes Tenterden, C. J., "so to be construed

28 (z), 24 (g), ed. 1841; 1 Phil. ev. 490; Rosc. ev. 465; post. p. 138. Firbank v. Bell, 1 B. & Ald. 36. Atherstone v. Bostock, 2 Sc. N. R. 637.

(t) May v. Smith, 1 Esp. 283.

(u) Wright v. Shawcross, 2 B. & Ald. 501, n. (a). Jacob v. Lindsay, 1 East, 460. (x) Lucas v. Jones, 13 Law, J., N. S. (Q. B.) Watkins v. Hewlett, 3 Moore, 211.

208.

as not to make any instrument liable to them, unless manifestly within the intention of the legislature." (y)

A plaintiff in support of an action brought for money had and received, tendered in evidence a memorandum in the handwriting of the defendant, in the terms following: "Sept. 15th, 1824,-Mr. Tomkins (the plaintiff) has left in my hands 2007."

This paper was objected to on the ground that it ought to have had a receipt stamp, as it was offered as evidence of a receipt of money, but the court held, that the words of the stamp acts, "every receipt or discharge given for or upon the payment of money," clearly applied to writings given as a discharge of money antecedently due, and not to an acknowledgment that money had been deposited to be accounted for on demand, and that no stamp at all was necessary to render such an admission or acknowledgment admissible in evidence. (2)

In an action for money had and received, brought to recover the sum of 35., paid to the defendant as overseer of the poor, for the support of a bastard child, which died a few days after its birth, the following writing, signed by the defendant and stamped as a receipt, was produced to establish the fact of the payment of the money sought to be recovered back: "Received, 1st July, &c., of Mr. Watkins (the plaintiff) the sum of 357, by a bill of exchange, payable at two months after date, which when paid will exonerate him from the expenses attending the birth of an illegitimate child to which he is now chargeable ;" and it was held, that this document might be produced in evidence without an agreement stamp.(a) Neither was a receipt stamp, it should seem, necessary to its admissibility as a simple acknowledgment of the fact of the payment, as that fact was not set up in discharge, but in support of the action. (b)

An IO U, being a simple acknowledgment of a debt, need not be stamped. (c) The defendant, having borrowed money of a Mrs. Melanotte, gave her the following memorandum: "1830, Nov. 1.-I O U forty-five pounds thirteen shillings, which I borrowed of Mrs. Melanotte; and to pay her five per cent. till paid." And it was held, that this document did. not require a stamp, either as a promissory note or an agreement; it was not a promissory note, as there were no words importing a promise to pay, and no time limited for payment, and, if the latter part of the note could be considered as an agreement to pay interest, yet, inasmuch as

(y) 9 D. & R. 545; 6 B. & C. 542; Ellenborough, C. J., 8 East, 245; 1 M. & W. 441.

(2) Tomkins v. Ashby, 9 D. & R. 543; 6 B. & C. 543, s. c.

(a) Watkins v. Hewlett, 3 Moore, 211.

(b) Jacob v. Lindsay, 1 East, 460. Wellard v. Moss, 7 Moore, 563. See however Hawkins

v. Warre, 5 D. & R. 519.

(c) Fisher v. Leslie, 1 Esp. 426. Israel v. Israel, 1 Campb. 499.

such interest did not amount to 207., it could not be an agreement requiring a stamp within the act. (d)

A simple acknowledgment in the following form does not require a stamp: "Mr. Huxley has advanced me 121. on furniture, &c., delivered to him at Stratford." Nor does a cognovit in an action require to be stamped, if it is a simple admission or acknowledgment, and contains no words or terms of agreement. (e) But if any terms or conditions be added thereto, for the payment of money by instalments or otherwise, it immediately becomes an agreement within the provisions of the statute. (ƒ) If to an IOU for 407. be added the words "to be paid on the 22nd instant," the words import a promise, and the instrument must be stamped as a promissory note. (g)

In an action of assumpsit against an attorney for the breach of an undertaking to recover the amount of a bill deposited with him or to redeliver the same to the plaintiff, the latter produced the following letter, addressed to him by the defendant: "I have this day received a bill of exchange for 3007., drawn, &c., which I hold as your attorney to recover the value from the respective parties, or to make such other arrangement for your benefit as may appear to me in my professional capacity, reasonable and proper." And it was held, that this letter, being a mere acknowledgment of a duty which the party took upon himself to perform, was not "evidence of a contract" within the meaning of the stamp acts. (h) So, where an action was brought for a breach of promise to discount or return bills, deposited the following unstamped memorandum, signed by the defendant, was held to be admissible in evidence: "I have in my hands three bills, which I have to get discounted or return on demand." (i)

In an action for the breach of a promise to re-deliver on request a quantity of wine, which had been placed in the defendant's care, the following unstamped memorandum was likewise held admissible in evidence: "This is to certify that Mr. M'Naughtan (the defendant) has in his cellar, belonging to Mr. Hartley, that is paid for, eight dozen and a half of port wine, bottled, &c.; one dozen bucellas, twelve dozen port, &c. &c."

"March 5th, 1823.-Received from Mrs. Hartley five bottles port, eight bottles bucellas, &c., making in the whole twenty dozen, and eleven bottles of port, &c. &c."

(d) Melanotte v. Teasdale, 13 Law, J., N. S. (Excheq.) 358.

(e) Huxley v. O'Connor, 8 C. & P. 204. (f) Ames v. Hill, 2 B. & P. 150. Reardon v. Swaby, 4 East, 188. Bray v. Manson, 8 M. & W.668.

(b).

(g) Brooks v. Elkins, 2 M. & W. 74.

(h) Langdon v. Wilson, 7 B. & C. 640, n.

(1) Mullett v. Huchison, ib. 639. Barry v. Goodman, 2 M. & W. 769.

"At the last settlement of the empty bottle account, there remained due to Mr. M'Naughtan, &c. &c. All the above wine paid for." (k)

In an action of trespass for turning the plaintiff out of his house, the defendant pleaded liberum tenementum, by way of justification, and, in order to show that the plaintiff had been permitted to reside in the house upon sufferance only, he produced the following unstamped memorandum, signed by the plaintiff: "I, David Barry, (the plaintiff,) hereby certify that I remain in the house, &c., upon sufferance only, and agree to give immediate possession to the said Wm. Goodman (the defendant) at any time he may require." And it was held, that a stamp was not requisite to render it admissible. "This was a mere admission," observes Lord Abinger," that the house was the house of Goodman, (the defendant,) and that he the plaintiff had no interest whatever in it. As to the agreement to give it up, that followed as a matter of course; no stipulation to give it up was necessary." (7)

A draft agreement, having on the back of it, we approve of this draft," signed by the plaintiff and defendant, was admitted in evidence, not for the purpose of authenticating and establishing the agreement therein referred to, but for a collateral purpose, to show, by the admission of the parties, that certain things were contemplated and intended to be done; (m) and a letter stating that "F. must be satisfied with his present salary, until I know what turn the season takes," was held not to require a stamp, as it was no agreement, but " a mere admission made by the defendant to a third person, that the plaintiff (F.) was in his the defendant's service." (n)

Any mere admission, indeed, or acknowledgment in writing, amounting simply to a link in the chain of evidence by which a contract or agreement is sought to be established, or an action maintained, may be given in evidence without any stamp, such as a broker's sale note containing an account of the sale and purchase of shares, (o) or an advertisement in a newspaper, intended to establish the simple fact of a dissolution of partnership, (p) or a schoolmaster's printed prospectus of the terms upon which he provides board and instruction for his pupils, or a landlord's written or printed particulars of the terms upon which he lets his

(k) Blackwell v. M'Naughtan, 1 Ad. & E. N. S. 27.

(1) Barry v. Goodman, 2 M. & W. 769. (m) Doe v. Pedgriph, 4 C. & P. 312. Forsyth v. Jervis, 1 Stark. 437. Rex v. Pooley, 3

B. & P. 316.

(n) Frazer v. Bunn, 8 C. & P. 704.

(0) Joseph v. Pebrer, 1 C. & P. 341. Tom

kins v. Savory, 9 B. & C. 704.

(p) Jenkins v. Blizard, 1 Stark. 418.