LIBEL CASH.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1430, 3 May 1912, Page 3

LIBEL CASH.

UNEXPECTANT COUNSEL, MR. HINDMARSH RECEIVES ADVICE FROM THE COURT. When the Court of Appeal resumed its sittings yesterday morning tho only actual appeal remaining to bo heart! was that of Gini Angeliui v. Carlo Antico. For the hearing of this tho Bench was occupied ■iy Mr. Justico Denniston, Mr. Justico Edwards, and Mr. Justice Cooper. On cho case being called, Mr. A. 11. Hindmarsh, who appeared for tho appellant, asked if tho case could follow that of Levin v. Tho Commissioner of Taxes, nil originating summons. Mr. Justice Denniston: No; it is not convenient for tho Court. Mr. Hindmarsh Understood Mr. Hindmarsh stated that he understood that tho other ease would only take rill 1 p.m. and his case would only occupy the afternoon. Mr. Myers, counsel in tho other case, here remarked that ho could not guarantee that it would only occupy the morning. His Honour then inquired who it was that had informed Mr. Hindmarsh that tho other case was to bo taken, in tho movning. Mr. Hindmarsh: I was given to understand that. His Honour replied that counsel had no right to assume anything of tho kind unless 'he made application to tho Court. Why had he not done so? Mr. Itindinarsh: I inquired in tho Supremo Court and could not find out when the case was coming on. / His Honour: You made no application to tho Court of Appeal. Counsel said that ho had inquired in tho office, and'had left tho matter to Mr. Skerrett to mention to tho Court. His Honqur: Do you consider the Court a negligible quantity? Mr. Hindmarsh replied that it was not his intention to treat tho Court with disrespect. Ho had been under a misunderstanding. His Honour: Then perhaps you can go oil now. It is only a matter of getting your books. You surely do not want time to prepare your argument. Mr. Justice Cooper here remarked that when he was in practice ho was always prepared to go on at such a stage. Counsel had surely had sufficient time in which to prepare. Mr. Hindmarsh's "Other Engagement." Mr. Hindmarsh said ho had not anticipated that tho case would come on, and mentioned something about another engagement. Mr ; Justico Denniston was of opinion that if (hero was another engagement, the Court should know what it was, and whether it was to lie considered. Besides counsel on tho other side might wish to go Oil. Mr. A. Fair, who appeared for the respondent, declared that he was ready and anxious to go on. Air. Hindmarsh refrained from mentioning his other engagement, and decided to proceed with his appeal. The Caso Goes On. The Court then adjourned until 11 a.m., when the hearing proceeded. The appeal was from u decision of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered in Hie Supremo Court last year. In tho original action, Gini Angclini sued Carlo Antico to recover XSOO damages for alleged libel. He alleged that Antico, in a letter to a third party, had published false and malicious statements regarding him (Angelini). In the letter certain family matters were referred to, but. it was proved that Carlo Antico had not written tho letter, though he had dictated it. The Chief Justice non-suited Angeliui on the ground that he had produced no proof of publication. It was from this decision that Angeliui n.ow appealed. Mr. Fair raised two preliminary objections to the appeal: (1) That the decision appealed against being a non-suit on point of law the proper procedure was 'a motion for a new trial, and (2) the appeal was made too late. It was pointed out by tho Court that the first point had already been dealt with in a prior case during the present sessions. As to the second point, Mr. Justico Cooper pointed out that even if leave to appeal wero refused, the appellant could go to the Supreme Court again and gain a fresh right of appeal. After somo discussion, counsel agreed that the appeal should proceed,. on the understanding that, it appellant succeeded, respondent should no£ bo called upon to pay costs. Argument having been heard, the Court reserved decision.

INCOME TAX. HOW SHOULD IT BE ASSESSED? TRUST ESTATE. Whether tho plaintiff is liable to be assessed for and to pay income tax in respect of tho annuity of JiMOO paid to her pursuant, io tho will of W. H. Levin, deceased? This was tho question- before the Court of Appeal yesterday in an originating summons heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice: Cooper. The summons had been removed from the Supreme Court on account of tho importance of the issue involved. Tho parties to tho action were Amy Levin, widow, of Netley Park. Gomshali, Surrey, in England, plaintiff, and tho Commissioner of Taxes, defendant. Mr. 31. Myers, with him Mr. W. H. D. Bell, appeared for Mrs. Levin, and the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Saltnond) appeared for the Commissioner of Taxes. ■ In the statement of admitted facts it was set out that W. H. Levin, by his will, April 22. 1891, bequeathed all his estate to hi 3 trustees until the death or sccond marriage of his widow, making provision for a clear annuity of -EIOO to a relative, and for .£3OOO per annum to his widow, and tho remainder to his four children. Tho testator died in 1893, and the trustees have since paid income tax upon the capital estate and upon revenue derived from lands and mortgages. In 1910, tho Commissioner of Taxes demanded income tax for the first time upon the annuity of .63000, and demanded it also for threo years antecedent to 1910. It was' paid under protest. . In 1911 tho sum of X 175 was demanded as income tax upon the annuity, and again the payment was mado under protest. The trustees and the plaintiff _ (Mrs. Levin) contend that no income tax is payable by Mrs. Levin as recipient of income from the trust estate where the trust estate pays tax in full upon the properties from which such income is derived. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Taxes contends that an unregistered annuity if and so far as it is derived from or constitutes a charge upon land or mortgages, is assessable for income 'ax. iJciral argument hnd not concluded' yesterday evening, and will be continued after several reserved judgments have been delivered to-day. DECISIONS PENDING. This morning the Court of Appeal will deliver reserved judgment in the following cases:—PitcaithU- and Co: v. M'Lean. and Son, Rex v. O'Shaughnessy, Rex v. Hassell and Campbell, D.I.C. v. Wellington City Corporation, and tho Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co., Lid., v. the Soli-citor-General.