FULL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 876, 23 July 1910, Page 15

FULL COURT.

DEANS ESTATE, CANTERBURY. THE. STAMP. DUTY. ' Tho Full Court, in Banco, had before it yesterday a Canterbury caso relating to the payment of Stamp duty. The Cliiof Justice (Sir Robert Stout), and Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman were on tho;bench. Tho case was concerned with tho estate of the lato John Deans, of Riecarton,' who died intestate, leaving ;i largo amount of real and personal property. In 1907, the Supromo Court made an "ordor for partial distribution of tho estate, and, in accordance with this nrrlnr, tho Homobush Estate was divided intp four* blocks. Marion Deans, James Deans, Robert George Deans, and John Deans, tho four elder children of the deceased, each reoeived one of those blocks; but the widow, Catherine Edith Dfjnus, retained a one-third nlißro in each of tho blocks. The children subsequently agreed to purchase her shares, but instead of paying cash they granted her' encumbrnnccfi ovor tho laud to seciiro her an aunuity equivalent to the capital value of her shares as ascertained from the tables of tho A.M.P. Society. On this transaction the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps assessed tho duty at £115' 10s., as duty on a conveyanqo of sale, and this was paid, but. subsequently the Commissioner derided that tho duty should be assessed as upon a deed of gift. The sum of £84" ss. 7d. was therefore claimed. Objection was raised, and the matter was referred to tho Minister in chargo of the Stamp Department. Ho uphold the higher assessment, and the parties then asked him to state a caso for the Court. This was done, and the- questions for tho Full Court wero: (1) ■ Waa ino assessment valid in law? (2) Are the appellants entitled to obtain a refund, and, if so, to what amount? Mr. T. W. Striugor,■ K.C., and Mr. P. Levi 'represented the appellants, while Mr. J. W. Salniond, Solicitor"tieneral, appeared for the respondent Department. ' ,' ' Mr. Stringer .argued that the transactjop was;an ordinary business transaction, and the documents honestly expressed tho .intention of the parties. The transfers bad been made for valuable consideration. • Mr. Salmpnd sought to show that, under the Stamp Act, a particular kind of consideration, namely, an annuity or periodical payment from one relative- to another, was not to be counted as a consideration. Tho transaction in tbo' case should therefore, ho submitted,- bo regarded as a gift rather than a sale. The Court reserved its decision.