MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1149, 9 June 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

4 (Before Dr. A. If Arthur, S.M.) KING AND SUBJECT. CAN A SUBJECT COUNTER-CLAIM? ECHO OF AN 01, D CASE. An ccho of an old civil cafo was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when tho Commii-Moncr of Taxes sued the Eastern Extension Australasian and China Telegraph Co.. Ltd.. to recover the sum of £71 Us. lOil., alleged to be due on account of taxes unpaid (=£67 lis.) and interest; thereon, at 10 per csnt. ~£6 Is. lOrt). Defendants eounterelaimed .CG7 95., alleging that on August il, 1004. defendants obtained judgment against the plaintilT for the rcfunil of ceriain income tax paid by defendants, and costs to be fixed by the Supreme Court. These costs were subsequently fixed at ,£lB5 2s. Od., and settled about. September 20, 1010, and the defendants were entitled to interest thereon at 6 per cent, from August, 1001. to September, 1910, this interest amounting to £67 9s. The defendants had since received a bill for income tax amounting to £131 10s. Cd.; paying £67 Is. Gd., and taking credit for the sum of i.'67 9s. The sum so paid, together with the amount credited, made up the whole, amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for such income-tax as aforesaid. Therefore the penal rate at 10 per cent, (amounting to -£G Us. l(ld.) never became due. Mr. T. Ncavn appeared for plaintiff, a,nd Mr. A. \Y. Blair for defendant. Mr. Neavc stated that the claim was for tuxes, and, of course, plaintiff was entitled to Judgment on the claim. The only question in dispute was the set-nff, and he suggested, therefore, that Mr. Blair should open. This procedure was agreed to. _ Mr. Blair said that the matter in im-ss-lion was one oi considerable importance to the 'income Tax Department. It might, in fact, be considered "of vital importance" to the Department, but so far as his clients were concerned they were only affected by the . amount claimed. Ths two questions at'issue here were: — Whether interest runs against the Crown on a judgment, and Whether, in au action between the Crown and a subject, the subject has the right to set off or counter-claim. ' Counsel thou proceeded to outline the circumstances leading up to the present action. In July, 1903, the Commission of Taxes had proceeded against the Eastern Extension Cable Company, the question being the basis on which tax should b?. paid. In one Court., the commission succeeded, but in a higher Court the company succeeded, and were also awarded costs, l-'inally, the matter went to the Privy Council, and was settled in favour of the company in July, 1906. The order for costs had been made in the Supreme Court on August 23, 1901, but the costs had not been computed until September 20, 1910, and the company claimed intertst on the amount. (£lB5 2s. Oil.) for the six years at 6 per cent, per annum. The Commissioner refused to pay the amount, and the company threatened that, when the next account for taxes became due, the amount would be deducted from the cheque, and tho threat was.duly carried out. Hence this action. In the case of an action between subject and subject there would have been no doubt that defendants would have had the' right to set off this claim, because they would undoubtedly be entitled to .interest. . Was. there anything which prevented that rule from applying whero the cas; was between King and subject if tho King delayed paying his money? Counsel submitted that there was not, and quoted the law on the subject at considerable length. Mr. Neave contended that tho Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim, the foundation of which u;as a judgment of the Supreme Court. Ho quoted Section 35 of the "Magistrate's Court Act," in support 'of his contention, and considered that it was a complete answer to the points raised. No claim for taxes, made on behalf of the Crown, could bo complicated by questions: of other claims "between the subject and the Crown. In the Income Assessment Act, it was doubtless the intention of the Legislature to recover whatever was due b.v the subject to the Crown without allowing any subsidiary or collateral matters-: to interfere. If the subject were of opinion that he had a just claim he was entitled to apply to the Court to have the dispute settled in tho manner prescribed. But, in the collection of taxes, the Commissioner 'was not to be hampered by these things. The subject must pay his taxes, and proceed independently to establish his own right. That was an important point when one considered tho manifold claims that the Crown v;as subject to. The Income Assessment Act was designed to prevent that sort of thing occurring. Counsel quoted authorities with the object of showing that the subject could not set off a claim against a claim by the Crown. As legal argument had not concluded at one o'clock, the case was adjourned until, this morning. CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Reserved judgment was delivered in the case in which Henry Hooper, commission agent, .Wellington, sued Ann Thirkell, married woman, Wellington, to recover the sum of £11 17s. fid., alleged to he due by defendant to plaintiff as commission on the salo of a property in Oriental Bay for tho sum of £1475, being 5 per ceDt. on the first £200, and 2J per cent, on the balance. Mr. A. Gray appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon for tlie defendant. For tho defence it was contended that the agreement between the parties for the sale of the property was not binding on account of certain misrepresentations alleged to have been made by plaintiff, and whicli induced the buyer to enter into a contract which she was unable to carry out. It was also contended that defendant 'had received no benefit from the plaintiff's services His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, held that plaintiff had done all that lie was required to do in connection with the sale, ■ and was, therefore, entitled to the commission claimed by him. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff, with costs.

CLADJ ATn'D COUNTERCLAIM. Yesterday there was concluded the hearing of the civil ease in which G. H.. Jackson and Co., oil and colour merchants, 2 Cuba Street, sued Henry North, wire-mat-tress manufacturer, of Little Taranaki Street, to reeovcr the sum of .£7 55., alleged to bo diio as balance of an account for painting and papering in connection with .a residence at Norton Tcrrace, Ivilbirnie. ' Defendant counter-claimed for .£3O 105., alleging that he had suffered damage to that, extent in connection with the contract for painting and papering carried out by plaintiff. Mr. D. Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. G. Bolton for defendant. The case extended over four sittings. At the conclusion of the evidence, the magistrate reserved his decision. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by .default was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: —Jack Jacobus v. Samuel James Balcombe, .£2 lfls. Gd., costs IDs.; Inglis Bros. v. George Everard, .C 23 Os. 2d., costs .£2 l.'is.; Adeline A. Rodan v. Marion Uufl', !)s„ costs 'is.; Adams. Ltd., v. W. T. Rhodes. JIG (is., costs ,CI. .'K (id.: James Drysdalo v. J. T. Steel, .£l7 12s. Od.. costs .£•'! Gf. 9d.: Wellington Operative Bakers' Union v. Robert Uyrrs, ,£1 Bs. Od., costs •Is.; luglis Bros. v. 0. Uergersen, .Ei 7s. "id., costs Ills.; Jack Jacobus v. Claude Rodger Simmonds, £2 is., costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. George Glover was ordered to pay .£2 10s. Gd. to Annie Pouting on or before June 22, in default three days' imprisonment. David Alexander Elliott was ordered to pay .£1 Gs. to Thompson Bros., Ltd., on or before June 22, in default seven days' imprisonment. ; No order was made in the case of Kirkraldie and Stains. Ltd., v. Ralph D. AVclsh, a claim for .£.'. "is. DISPUTE OVER CLOTHES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Morrison and Penny, tailors, of Wellington, sued 0. Aston, settler, of Devon Street, to recover the sum of .£5 10s., al-

leged to bp flno (o plaintiffs by defendant for a suit of o!otlies supplied. Mr. I'. Dix appeared for p!:iint)ffs. and 11 r. \V. L. Rntlienberg for defendant. After hearing evidence, the magistrate Rave judgment for tho amount claimed, witli costs amounting to .£2 9s. CI,AIM I'OR WAGES. Hearing was concluded yesterday of I lie rase in which Ilerliert ilann, chauffeur, of Wellington, claimed from Thomas Patrick Lyons, motor-car owner, of Wellington, for one week's wages alleged to bo due from April 7 to April If, lflll, at 10s. per week, and one week's wages from April 11 to April 21, in lieu of notirc. Defendant: counter-claimed for X" Ss., alleging that that sum was due by plaintiff to defendant, and made up as follows:—4:2 B.i. for taking care of a car for the plaintiff at; his request and garage room for 16 weeks at lis. per week, •£•1 as damages suffered by defendant through plaintiff absenting himself from work, and J:2 alleged to have been received by the plaintiff as takings on behalf of the defendant. Mr. C. R. Dix appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. L. Machell for the defendant. In respect to the claim, defendant had paid into Court the sum of J!2 10s. and costs on that amount. After hearing further evidence, liis Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, and judgment for the defendant on the counter-claim for the sum of Jc2 Bs. and costs. POLICE CASES. Arthur Pobar was, on the application of his counsel (Mr. H. F. O'Leary), remanded until to-day on a charge of being "an idle and disorderly person, in that he consorted with reputed thieves. - Bail was allowed in the sum of .£2O, and one surety of X-20. John Black was charged with being an idle and disorderly person in that lie habitually consorted with reputed thieves. Accused admitted consorting, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Alexander Fraser, charged with drunkenness, was fined 10s., in default 21 hours' imprisonment. Reserved decision was given in the caso in which "Jack" Low was called on to show cahse why he should not be adjudged the father of an unborn child, and be called oil to find security for future maintenance. His Worship dismissed tho information without prejudice. Mr. P. AY. Jackson appeared for complainant and Mr. D. Jackson for defendant.