SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 6 October 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

RESERVED JUDGMENTS. TTIE CUSTOMS TEST CAPE. In a reserved decision yesterday. Hie Chief .Justice decided two important'.questions of principle involved in a special rase which had been stated lor hearing last month. Tho iirst question was whether if the price of goods advanced, between the time at which they were purchased in England and the time at which they were actually shipped from there to New Zealand, the duty payable on such was to he assessed on the invoice value, or on tho value as at the advanced price? The second point was whether the Customs authorities, having assessed and collected duty on goods cleared at the invoice value, wero entitled to make a further assessment of duty in respect of such goods?

Tho parties to the action were the Minister for Customs, plaintiff, anil Ross and Glendinning, Ltd., warehousemen, of Wellington, defendants. At the hearing, the Solicitor-General (Mr. .1. W. Salmond) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., with bim Mr. F. Plvellv, for Ross and Glendining. It appeared that, on or about February 3. 1910, the. linn gave an order to Michael Nairn and Co., London, for certain linoleums, the prices to be according to quotations in forco at the time at which the order was given. Michael Nairn and Co., Ltd., duly shipped the goods by R.M.S. lonic, which left London for New Zealand on June 21, 1910, the total invoice value being .£SO 19s. The lonic arrived, ill Wellington early in August, and on August 10 the goods were cleared and delivered to Ross and Glendining, Ltd., after they had made payment of tho ad valorum duty on the invoice value. It had, however, happened that about May 11, 1910, tho price of linoleums, of tho quality and description imported, had advanced 10 per cent, in the principal markets of England, and such advance had continued until the date of shipment, viz., Juno 2-t, 1910. The Customs, howover, had not been aware of this until September 2, but as soon as they did become aware of it they claimed from Ross and Glendining, Ltd., additional duty amounting to £1 Bs. Sd. In order to have the question decided as to whether defendants were liable, a special case was stated as aliovo. In giving judgment, his Honour said that the first question turned upon the true interpretation of Section 55 of the Customs Laws Act, which stated:— "Wherein duty on imported goods is imposed ad valorem, or according to the truo and real value of such goods, such value shall be understood to be the fair market of value thereof when sold for home consumption in the principal, markets of the country whence and at the time when the same wero exported." After a reference to some authorities, tho Chief Justice went on to say that he was of opinion that the plain meaning of the words "at tho time when the same were exported" was at the time when the vessel took them away from their place.of export. As regarded the second question, his Honour was of opinion that, reading the Customs Duties Statute, and looking at Section 209 of the Customs Laws Act (which gives a general power of suit over all duties), there is power to sue for such duties as a debt due by the importer. His Honour was further of opinion that, ,io the duties became a debt due by the importer to the Crown, the acceptance of less than tho amount could not be held as accord and satisfaction, I hero was no power in tho Collector of Customs to vary the duty by.' accepting less than the legal amount.

The questions put in tho case were, therefore, answered in favour of rhe plaintiff (the Minister for--Customs), and judgment was entered with £3 3s. c.!.-ts. ADVERTISING CONTRACT. THE DAMAGES FOR A BREACH. Yesterday morning the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered reserved judgment in tho in which Hemnh and Jackson, advertising agents, sued Edmund Carroll, confectioner, to recover the sum of .£401) damages for alleged breach of contract. John Stephen Oliver, John Dwy-er, and Richard Dwyor wcro joined as third parties.

Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant, and Mr. W. n. D. Bell for the third parties.

riaintiffs in their statement of claim alleged that, on January 23, 1911, they entered into a contract with Edmund Carroll, whereby it was agreed that an advertising fountain should bo placed in Carroll's tearooms in Willis Street, and remain there 'for five years, and become tho property of Carroll at the end of that period.' Should Carroll sell his business within five years, the &*.]<! was to provide for the fountain remaining in place in the tea-rooms untU the five years had,elapsed. On-July 15 last, the business was sold, and the soda fountain was included in the deed of transfer, but no provision was made for it to be retained n place in the tea-rooms. It had sin;e been removed, and as tho plaint iff -t, who had let advertising contracts, sulfered serious damage, they brought the'present action against Carroll tor breach of contract, claiming •£■!)!) damages (computed on the profits ■'( the advertising for the first year, which plaintiffs stated were JIOO net) for loss of tho rights for four years "Tho only question in this case," said his Honour, "is tho question of damages. An agreement was made, and it was not performed, and the defendant did not make tho third parties liable to perform it, so that tho plaintiff could sue tho tliird parties. Wnother the defendant can or cannot suo tho third parties must be decided in another suit. _ .

"As to the damages, I am of opinion that the estimate of loss by the plaintiffs is based on several contingencies that may nover happen. When they began an action in tho Magistrate's Court on August 211 last they estimated their damages at .£2OO, and nothing so far as the evidence is concerned has transpired to show that their estimate was an under estimate." Looking at all tho circumstances, lus Honour estimated tho damages at .£18(1, and gave judgment for that amount, with costs on the lowest scale, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements as between plaintiff and defendant. It has been agreed between tho parties that the machine is to be returned to the plaintiffs. PAURO MARINO. PROMISES TO OBEY COURT. Tho case of tho Aotea District Maori Land Board v. Pauro Marino, of Banana, which lias been several times beforothe Supreme Court during the lost tnree months, reached what was probably its final etage yo.-t(T(!av evening. It will bo remembered that in June last tho Land Board obtained an injunction against Pauro to prevent him trespassing on the board's land. This order he refused to obey, and ho was attached for contempt and subsequently committed to prison. Meantime ho Iratl appealed against the original judgment, but his appeal was this week dkmiieed by tho Court of Appeal. When the Conrt of Appeal was | about to rise yesterday tho Solicitor-General said ho would like to mention the case. Pauro Marino was in the court to ask for his discharge. Mr. Justice Deuniston: What has happened to him ? I Tho Solicitor-General: Ho was sent to gaol, your.Honour. Mr. Justice Donniston: Oh, I did not know! What for? The Solicitor-General: For Tofusdng to obey the order of tho Court, your Honour.

Mr. Justice Edwards: I was very sorry to put tho old gentleman in gaol, but he declined to ob?y tile order of the Court. It was finally arranged that the Chief Justico should* hcax the application for release,, and Pauro was brought in.

In answer to his Honour, the SolicitorGeneral stated that tho Land Board had no objection to offer, provided that his Ifonou'r received a satisfactory assuranre that Panro would obey the order of the Court.

Pauro stated ithrough an interpreter that he -would coffily with the order,

Tho Solicitor-General then staled lliat (he board desired that a condition of his release should be that he removed from tho land with all his stock, within a week. I'auro then desired that his sheep (some 300) should 1)0 left 011 tho land until after shearing time, and on being told that, that was impossible, asked lor three weeks. Tho Solicitor-General: This is a new objectinn that was not raised before, your Jknour. The Chief Justice: There is a reason for thai". It is a sort of Maori custom, it means he goes out' of battle with his sv.ord. (Laughter.) Eventually J'auro was allowed a fortnight, trom' tho time of his arrival, in which to remove his sheep. Tlis Honour then informed him that' ho was discharged and expressed tho hope th-.it he would give 110 more trouble, but' still l'auro showed no inclination to leave. Tho Chief Justice: What is ho waiting fcr ? The Solicitor-General explained that the Native had some money in his possession when he was committeil and he was sent away from gaol without it. It was to bo brought down from the gaol. The Chief Justice: Oh! About a quarter of an hour later tho money arrived and Pauro and a number of other Maoris, who wero in Court, departed.