|
Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock (also known as the negotiable cow) is a fictitious legal case written by the humorist A. P. Herbert for ''Punch'' magazine as part of his series of ''Misleading Cases in the Common Law''. It was first published in book form in ''More Misleading Cases in the Common Law'' (Methuen, 1930).〔(A.P. Herbert's Misleading Cases )〕 The case evolved into an urban legend. ==Summary of the case== The case involved a Mr Albert Haddock, often an ingenious litigant in Herbert's writing. In this case, Haddock had been in disagreement with the Collector of Taxes over the size of his tax bill. Haddock complained that the sum was excessive, particularly in view of the inadequate consideration he believed that he received from that Government in service. Eventually the Collector demanded £57 and 10 shillings. Haddock appeared at the offices of the Collector of Taxes and delivered a white cow "of malevolent aspect". On the cow was stencilled in red ink: :''To the London and Literary Bank, Limited'' :''Pay the Collector of Taxes, who is no gentleman, or Order, the sum of fifty seven pounds £57/0/0 (and may he rot!) '' :''ALBERT HADDOCK'' Haddock tendered the cow in payment of his bill and demanded a receipt. During the hearing, the fictitious judge, Sir Basil String, enquired whether stamp duty had been paid. The prosecutor, Sir Joshua Hoot KC confirmed that a two-penny stamp was affixed to the dexter horn of the cow. The collector declined the cow, objecting that it would be impossible to pay it into a bank account. Haddock suggested that he endorse the cow to a third party to whom he might owe money, adding that "there must be many persons in that position". Sir Joshua informed the court that the collector did try to endorse the cheque on its back, in this case on the abdomen. However, Sir Joshua explained: "()he cow ... appeared to resent endorsement and adopted a menacing posture." The collector abandoned the attempt and declined to take the cheque. Haddock led the cow away and was arrested in Trafalgar Square for causing an obstruction, leading to the co-joined criminal case, ''R. v Haddock''. He testified that he had tendered a cheque in payment of income tax. A cheque was only an order to a bank to pay money to the person in possession of the cheque or a person named on the cheque, and there was nothing in law to say it must be on paper of specified dimensions. A cheque, he argued, could be written on notepaper. He said he had "drawn cheques on the backs of menus, on napkins, on handkerchiefs, on the labels of wine bottles; all these cheques had been duly honoured by his bank and passed through the Bankers’ Clearing House". He thought that there was no distinction in law between a cheque on a napkin and a cheque on a cow. When asked as to motive, he said he had not a piece of paper to hand. Horses and other animals used to be seen frequently in the streets of London. He admitted on cross-examination that he may have had in his mind an idea to ridicule the taxman. "But why not? There is no law against ridiculing the income tax."〔 In relation to the criminal prosecution, Haddock said it was a nice thing if in the heart of the commercial capital of the world a man could not convey a negotiable instrument down the street without being arrested. If a disturbance was caused by a crowd, the policeman should arrest the crowd, not him. The judge, sympathetic to Haddock, found in his favour on the tax claim and prosecution for causing a disturbance. By tendering and being refused the cow, the other parties were estopped from then demanding it later. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|