Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock

Haddock complained that the sum was excessive, particularly in view of the inadequate consideration he believed that he received from that Government in service.

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!)

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.

"[2] 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.

The judge, sympathetic to Haddock, found in his favour on the tax claim and prosecution for causing a disturbance.

In the English case of Victor Chandeler International Ltd v The Commissioners of Custom and Excise and Teletext Limited [1999] EWHC 214 (Ch) Mr Justice Lightman stated that a document, in the context of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, "must be inanimate: neither a person nor A. P. Herbert's 'negotiable cow' can constitute a document.

Documented cases provide illustrations of wills on the side of empty egg-shells,[8] and cheques being written on a variety of strange surfaces.

Yet another "misleading case", also Inland Revenue v Haddock, was cited in a debate in the House of Lords on 14 July 2004.

[12] In this, Mr. Haddock successfully argued that, during a period when judges had their salaries reduced by 30% because of financial emergency, they could not hear cases relating to the Inland Revenue because they had a personal interest in the outcome.