What ever happened
to the litigious Albert Haddock?
I’m so glad you finally asked.
After Haddock was successful in quashing a traffic ticket on the
grounds ”that Magna Carta is no longer law” (but was
fined costs of one pound for conducting his defense in rhymed Couplets”)(1)
— and after he diabolically escaped punishment for printing
crossword puzzles with answers libelous of The Bishop of Bowl. John
Lickspittle, and others (the persons who completed the crossword
puzzles were guilty of libel, not Haddock)(2) — Haddock (with
some assistance from his creator, A.P. Herbert) confronted the Internal
Revenue Service in The Case of the Promissory Cow: Board of
Inland Revenue v. Haddoock.(3) Haddock and the Internal Revenue
were involved in a bitter tax dispute (or, in the court’s
words, they have “for many months in spite of earnest endeavors
on both sides, been unable to establish harmonious relations”).
Finally, “after an exchange of endearing letters,” the
amount in dispute was reduced to 57 pounds. Then, the Collector
of Taxes received a visit from a noisy crowd, attracted by the sight
of Mr. Haddock, who was leading a large white cow of malevolent
aspect.” Clearly stenciled in red ink on the back and sides
of the cow were these words:
“To
the London and Literary, Bank, Ltd. ‘Pay the Collector
of taxes, who is no gentleman, or Order, the sum of 57 pounds (and
may he rot!).’
L 57/0/0
Albert Haddock”
Haddock tendered
the cow in payment of the income tax, but the Collector refused “objecting
that it would be difficult or even impossible to pay the cow into
the bank.” To this, Haddock “politely” suggested
that the Collector could simply “endorse the cow to any third
party to whom he owed money, adding that there must be many persons
in that category. The results (and the charges):
“
...The Collector then endeavored to endorse the check on the back
of the check, that is to say on the abdomen of the cow. The cow,
however, appeared to resent the endorsement and adopted a menacing
posture. The Collector, abandoning the attempt, declined finally
to take the check. Mr. Haddock led the cow away and was arrested
in Trafalgar Square for causing an obstruction. He has also been
summoned by the Board of Inland Revenue for nonpayment of income
tax.
” In defense,
Haddock argued that there was nothing in the ‘“statute
or customary law to say that [a check must be written on a piece of
paper of specified dimensions; indeed he himself had drawn checks
on menus, napkins, and winebottle labels — all of which were
duly honored and passed through the Bankers’ Clearing House.”
Therefore, Haddock:
“
... could see no distinction in law between a check written on a
napkin and a check written on a cow. The essence of each document
was a written order to pay money, made in the customary form and
in accordance with statutory requirements as to stamps, etc. A check
was admittedly not legal tender in the sense that it could not lawfully
be refused; but it was accepted by custom as a legitimate form of
payment. There were funds in his bank sufficient to meet the cow;
the Commissioners might not like the cow, but, the cow having been
tendered, they were stopped from charging him with failure to pay.
(Mr. Haddock here cited Spowers v.The Strand Magazine,
Lucas v. Finck, and Wadsworth v.The Metropolitan Water
Board.)
“… Cross-examined as to motive, Haddock said that he
had no check-forms available and, being anxious to meet his obligations
promptly, had made use of the only material at hand. Later he admitted
that there might have been present in his mind a desire to make
the Collector of Taxes ridiculous. But why not? There was no law
against deriding the income tax.”
As to his arrest
for causing an obstruction, Haddock indignantly commented that “it
was a nice thing if, in the heart of the commercial capital of the
world, a man could not carry a negotiable instrument down the street
without being arrested” — and he sued Constable Boot for
false imprisonment.
The decision was rendered by Justice Basil String who —what
a charmed life Haddock seemed to lead in his career as a litigant
— was not particularly enamored with the Internal Revenue. He
began by noting that this case involves “a citizen who is unusual
both in his clarity of mind and integrity of behavior,” and
then continued:
...
The defendant, Mr. Haddock, repels arid resents the income tax,
but since it has received the sanction of Parliament, he dutifully
complies with it. Hampered by practical difficulties, he took the
first steps he could to discharge his legal obligations to the State.
Paper was not available, so he employed instead a favorite cow.
Now, there can he nothing obscene, offensive, or derogatory
in the presentation of a cow by one man to another. Indeed,
in certain parts of our Empire the cow is venerated as a sacred
animal. Payment in kind is the oldest form of payment, and payment
in kind more often than not meant payment in cattle.... So that,
whether the check was valid or not, it was impossible to doubt
the validity of the cow; and whatever the Collector’s
distrust of the former it was at least his duty to accept the latter
and credit Mr. Haddock’s account with its value. But as Mr.
Haddock protested in his able argument, an order to pay is an order
to pay, whether it be made on the back of an envelope or on the
back of a cow. The evidence of the bank is that Mr. Haddock’s
account was in funds. From every point of view, therefore, the Collector
of Taxes did wrong, by custom if not by law, in refusing to take
the proffered animal.
As to the charge
of causing an obstruction, Justice String first noted that the horse,
“at the present time a much less useful animal than the cow,”
constantly appears in the public street without protest — and
that the motor car, “more unnatural and unattractive still,”
is more numerous than either animal. Thus, he concluded:
“…
It cannot be unlawful to conduct a cow through the London streets…
Much less can the cow be regarded as an improper or unlawful companion
when it is invested (as I have shown) with all the dignity of a
bill of exchange.
If people choose
to congregate in one place upon the apparition of Mr. Haddock with
a promissory cow, then Constable Boot should arrest the people, not
Mr. Haddock. Possibly, if Mr. Haddock had paraded Cockspur Street
with a paper check for one million pounds made payable to the bearer,
the crowd would have been as great, but that is not to say that Mr.
Haddock would have broken the law. In my judgment Mr. Haddock has
behaved throughout in the manner of a perfect knight, citizen and
taxpayer. The charge brought by the Crown is dismissed; and I hope
with all my heart that in his action against Constable Boot Mr. Haddock
will be successful. What is the next case, please?”
|
