PRIVY COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1371, 23 February 1912, Page 5

PRIVY COUNCIL.

NEW ZEALAND CASES,

By Telegraph-Press Association-Copyright London, February 21. Special leavo to appeal in forma pauperis was refused by tho Privy Council in the cases Ah On versus the Attor-noy-Genoral of Now Zealand, nnd Jones versus Lefroy, of New Zealand.

Tho action Jones v. Lefroy is in ionnection with the Mokau Block. Mi. J. Jones some timo ago applied to the Supremo Court for leave to issue a summons on persons resident in England or their attorney in New Zealand. Sir Robert Stout, in giving judgment, said there if as an allegation that defendants, contrary to the covenants and conditions implied by law on the part of the mortgagees, put up for sale by public auction by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Taranaki, and bought in the property, which they bad a right to do according to the Land Transfer Act. On July 20, 1908, the Full Court decided that tho property had passed to Herrman Lewis, nnd that there was no causo of action against defendants in connection with the land. The Chief Justice, therefore, refused to grant the leavo asked, but ho gave leave to appeal direct to the Privy Council. Mr. E. Ct. Jellicoe appeared for Jones.

(By Telesraph—Press Association.) Napier, February 22? Ah On, who, according to the cablepram, has been refused leave to appeal m forma pauperis, was convicted of keeping a common gamine; house, mid was fined .£2O. Messrs, Dolan and Ferguson brought the case before tho Appellate Court at Wellington, when the Chief Justice referred to it. as n "comedy of errors," but Tofused to qnnsh the eonriction. Mr. Jellicoe then appealed in forma pauperis, with tho result stated.

i . INCOME TAX CASE. London, February 21. In the Privy Council'appeal .case, Commissioner of Taxes, New South Wales, versus Adams, the appeal was allowed, appellants paying costs in accordance with nir undertaking given. Tho case concerns tho appeal of tho Soaham Colliery Company against the assessment of tho Income Tax Commissioners, on the ground that the Commissioners erroneously refused to allow the company to deduct from their taxable income from certain lands a sum equal to 5 per cont. on tho amount of the unimproved value of the land, plus 5 per cent, on the amount of the value of improved lands, which were used and required for tho purposes of their business. Judgo Murray, sitting as a Court of Reviow, uphold this contention, and granted tho deduction.