LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 19, 17 October 1907, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

APPEAL COURT. Their Honours the Chief) Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Justices Williams, Denniston( Cooper, Chapman, and Button, tools .their seats at 10.30 a.m. yesterday. ■ 1 : QUESTION OF EVASION OF DEATH ;; .' ' .duties. . . '..." Arguiriont was concluded in < the case ber .tween Annie- Qnayle Town end, of Christ- ', oliuroh (appellant) vl' the Commissioner of ■ Stainps\(rc3ponfllent); '"Mr.v'SlioTrttti •K'.C.. (withhim Mr. ;Brown, 'of Chris'tchurch), appeared for appellant, and .Mr; TV' W. Springer, ,K;C., of Chrlstchurch i(with ; him 'Mr. Moycrs), for respondent. ' The.facts wero,. shortly,'as Henry Moore (father; of tho'appollant), who was an early, colonist,, died at Christchurch on ' July T, 1905, being nearly 93 years of age. •'3is: estate was certified, uiidor the Deceased Estato Duties Act. 1881, to bo of'.tlic 'of £686,158 16s. 7d.-' ' ..." i ch-Appellant, who is executrix and sole lcgaof objected to the assessment, claiming that. Xaoys' and property'ropresonting, £432,'222, the fh' bad been included in tho estate by tho in; Vmissiondr : of, Stamps; belongwl to her. tho duty as'assessed, yiz.;-'£34,307, **8 I;now claims,' by wiiy'of- appeal, a refund *P £ tho, amount —' approximately ; £20,000— ? ich,. she: alleges;' was. overpaid. ; coo behalf, of Mrs. Townond,-.it was conwat .'.that, .all .'tho.'transa'ctions resulting, a'dd "if*payment' to her. of. tho amounts'.in boil ."-'Af .which'liability to-duty is. disputed and.complete gifts.during'the lifer mill-Moore; and that, consequently, to and assets in question dfd not , " to deceased at the time of his death, "-■it was,'.counsel contended, immaterial that the testatorrhad the motive in making the ■ gifts of escaping duty; '• . ' ' Counsel ..for.-: respondent . submitted . that tKere Vw.Jio> pvidence. of an effective gift of those .moneys, during , the testator's lifetime, and .that some act of recognition of _.oack transaction by tho testator would requiro to be proved. It was '.further' contended that, inasmuch as allithe nmirants'in question were admittedly' originally-- the ■ property, of tho. testator, and that, as thoy came into Mrs. Townen'd's 'hands as .'his' attorney, .she occupied thb position'..of a trustee, and,,therefore, the onus ef proving that tVe moneys wers the' subject ef gifts to.W lay upon her. Thiß onus, it was ■ submitted, had act been 'discharged;'; INirtliormore, if the transactions were "proved..to : bo gifts, then," it ■pas con-tended,-the gifts-wero not rral, but'colourable, and,- therefore,'constituted dispositions, tnado'for-the'purpose'of evading duty./ ■ At the, conclusion of argument, which lasted throughout the day, .the Court intimated that it would' take time, to. consider, its ..judgment. ' .The-Court'then adjourned until Wednesday (Vest at 10.30 a.m. . i,