
    Daniel Desmond vs. Arthur F. L. Norris.
    An innocent omission to cancel a revenue stamp upon a promissory note in the mode prescribed by statute is no ground of defence to an action upon the note.
    Contract upon a promissory note signed by the defendant and dated March 5th 1864.
    At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., without a jury, the note was produced in evidence by the plaintiff and had upon it a United States revenue stamp, which was cancelled in this form : “A. F. L. N. f. 1864.” The defendant objected to the introduction of the note in evidence, because the stamp was not duly cancelled; but the judge overruled the objection, and found for the plaintiff. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      N. Richardson, for the defendant.
    No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.
   Bigelow, C. J.

The defect in the mode of cancelling the revenue stamp on the note is not a valid ground of defence. The mode of cancellation prescribed by the act of congress, U. S. St. of 1862, c. 119, § 99, is directory only. No penalty is provided for an innocent omission to comply with the requirements of the law in this particular. It is only when such omission is fraudulent, that the guilty party is subject to a fine. Whether such fraudulent omission by a promisor would be a good ground of defence to a note, we have no occasion to de» termine. It is sufficient for the decision of this case that it does not appear that there was any wiful violation of law.

Exceptions overruled.  