<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>JUDGMENT</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>SMYLY, C J</strong>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice E R. Logan dated the 23rd day of March, 1922, by special leave of the Full Court, on the ground that the judge had misconstrued the meaning of section 39 of the Stamp Ordinance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. McCarthy submitted that if options did not come under the words &quot; or with respect to the letting, etc.&quot;, only agreements for leases would be liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Carter cited Redman, Landlord and Tenant, 5th edition, page 137, no acceptance in an option; Stroud &#x27;s Dictionary, Volume II, P.l070, no letting or taking-only intention to do a future act Redman, P.179, where rent consideration separate stamp not necessary. <strong>Worthington v. Warrington.. (18 L.J., C.P. 350) ; Phillips v. Phillips (29 Ch. D.673)</strong> ; Mr. McCarthy in reply submitted that these cases only applied to options for purchase, no case as to options for renewals. In my opinion the consideration for an option for renewal being the rent, no further stamp is necessary. It seems to me that i…</p>