|
The Negotiable cow is the common name of a fictitous legal case known as Inland Revenue v Haddock (heard jointly with R v Haddock) written by the humourist A. P. Herbert for Punch magazine as part of his series of Misleading Cases in the Common Law. The case did evolve into something of an urban legend, and periodically assertions are made that it was a true case. Sir Alan Patrick Herbert (September 24, 1890 - November 11, 1971) was a British humorist, Member of Parliament, barrister, and novelist. ...
Punch was a British weekly magazine of humour and satire published from 1841 to 1992 and from 1996 to 2002. ...
An urban legend or urban myth is a kind of modern folklore consisting of stories often thought to be factual by those circulating them. ...
Summary of the "case"
The case involed a Mr Albert Haddock, who was usually the ever unfortunate litigant in Herbert's writings. In relation to this case, Mr Haddock had been in profound disagreement with the Collector of Taxes in relation the size of Mr Haddock's tax bill.
Mr Haddock complained that the sum demanded was excessive, particularly in view of the inadequate consideration which he believed that he received from that Government in terms of service.[1] Eventually the Collector of Taxes demanded the sum of fifty seven pounds, ten shllings. This page deals with consideration under English law, a United States focused article is available here. ...
The one morning shortly thereafter Mr Haddock appeared at the offices of the Collector of Taxes, and delivered to him a large white cow "of malevolent aspect". On the cow's were 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 (and may he rot!) L 57/10/0
- ALBERT HADDOCK
Mr Haddock tendered the cow to the Collector in payment of his tax bill and promptly demanded a receipt.
During the "hearing", the fictitious judge, Sir Basil String, enquired whether stamp duty had been paid on the negotiable instrument. The fictitious prosecutor, Sir Joshua Hoot KC confirmed that a two-penny stamp was affixed to the dexter horn of the cow. Stamp duty is a form of tax that is levied on documents. ...
A negotiable instrument is a specialised type of contract for the payment of money which is unconditional and capable of transfer by negotiation. ...
Cherie Booth QC wearing her ceremonial robes (including full-bottomed wig) as Queens Counsel at the Bar of England and Wales. ...
The Collector had declined to accept the cow, and had objected that it would be impossible to pay the cow into a bank account. Perhaps unhelpfully, Mr Haddock suggested that the Collector could endorse the cow to any third party to whom the Collector might owe money, adding mischeviously that "there must be many persons in that position".
Sir Joshua gravely informed the court that the Collector did in fact endeavour to endorse the bovine cheque on its back, which was to say, in this case, on the abdomen of the cow. However, Sir Joshua explained: "[t]he cow ... appeared to resent endorsement and adopted a menacing posture."
The Collector then abandoned the attempt, and declined to take the cheque. Mr Haddock then led the cow away and was subsequently arrested in Trafalgar Square for causing an obstruction, leading to the co-joined criminal case, R v Haddock. Trafalgar Square viewed from the northeast corner. ...
Mr Haddock 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 statute or customary law to say that that order must be written on a piece of paper of any specified dimensions.
A cheque, Mr Haddock argued, could be written on a piece of notepaper. He testified that he himself 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 though that there was no distinction in law between a cheque written on a napkin and a cheque written on a cow.
In relation to the criminal prosecution, Mr 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.
The judge, being heavily sympathetic to Mr Haddock, found in his favour on both the tax claim and the prosecution for causing a disturbance.
Citations Although the case itself is fictitious, due to its widespread notoriety (not to say plausibility) it has been referred in actual judicial decisions. See for example, Messing v Bank of America (2002) at paragraph 1.[1]
Stranger than fiction... Negotiable instruments and other legal documents have from time to time been scribed onto strange and unusual surfaces. Documented cases provide illustrations of wills being scratched in artillery shells,[citation needed] and cheques being written on chalkboards.[citation needed] This does not adequately cite its references or sources. ...
Example of a Canadian cheque. ...
A chalkboard, with multiple colors of chalk Blackboard Chalk A quadruple chalkboard at the Helsinki University of Technology A chalkboard or blackboard is a reusable writing surface on which text or drawings are made with chalk or other erasable markers. ...
What periodically excites some debate is as to whether the law stated in the "case" is correct. It is true that negotiable instruments by law do not require paper form (and nowadays purely electronic documents are entirely common). However, in modern times most taxing statutes prescribe how payment of tax liabilities must be made. So sadly, it now appears unlikely that an irate taxpayer will seek to settle his or her debts with a farmyard animal.
External links Footnotes - ^ This is something of an inside joke for lawyers: contracts are only legally enforceable if each side provides something of value, which the law refers to as "consideration". However, the argument of Mr Haddock was not good in law, as the court will never assess the adequacy of each sides consideration.
| 
Feeds |
Contact