LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1446, 22 May 1912, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

. SUPREME COURT, SIR WALTER BULLER'S ESTATE. STAMP DUTY CASE. WAS THERE A DEED OP GIFT? An action to recover stamp duty claimed by the C'rown on what is contended to have been a deed of gift was commenced in tho Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr. Justice Cooper. The plaintiff to the action was his Majesty the King. The defendants were Walter Leopold Duller, of Wellington, Gilbert Mair, of Palmerston North (surviving executors of tho will of Walter Lawry Duller, barrister, lato of Wellington), and A. L. Herdman and H. E. Anderson, barristers, executors of tho will of Arthur Percival Buller, barrister, late of Wellington). Tho Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmoad) acted for tho Crown, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. H. li. Anderson), for tho defendants. According to the statement of claim, Walter Lowry Buller, prior to February 28, 1893, was the proprietor and beneficial owner of 1000 acres of land at. Kereru (Manawatu), and ou the date referred to transferred tho property to his sons—Walter Leopold Buller and Arthur Percival Buller—for ,£2OOO. The transfer was presented to the Commissioner tor Stamps for assessment for stamp duty, and stamped as on a. conveyanco of salo nt .E2UOO, stamp duty amounting to .£ls being paid. Tho memorandum of transfer was registered by tho sons on -December 12, 1895. On July 19, 190G, Walter Lowry Buller died, and probate of his will was granted to Arthur Percival Buller, Walter Leopold Buller, and Gilbert Mair, executors under tho will. On. February 28, 1910, Arthur Percival Buller died, and probate of-his will was. granted to his executors, A. L. Herdman and 11. E. Anderson. The sum of .£2OOO, stated to have been paid by tho sons to Walter Lowry Buller was not paid, nnd the real value of the property at tho time of the execution of the registration of transfer was <£4000. This transaction, it was contended, was a deed of gift within the meaning of the Stamp Act Amendment Act, and duty was assessable thereon at .£2OO. There was also payable a fine of 100 per centum, and judgment was claimed as for .£IOO, being the amount of tho duty and fines. Tho main contention of the defenco was that the original transfer had been abrogated by a deed of mortgage which had subsequently been executed. In this connection the Solicitor-General, in his opening address, said/1 hat no reflection was cast upon tho sons, who appeared to have executed the mortgage while unaware of its real significance. The Solicitor-General concluded his opening just before the Court rose, further hearing of tho case boing adjourned till Thursday. MIRAMAR LAND. THE M'LEOD COMPENSATION CA§E. Hearing of the compensation case between H. N. M'Leod (plaintiff) and the Wellington Harbour Board (defendants), a claim for i£lo,Boo compensation in respect of land taken for reclamation purposes, was continued yesterday beforo his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman and Messrs. W. W. Hannay and W. G. Foster (assessors). Evidenco was heard in regard to tho value of the plaintiff's land with respect to its adaptability for brick-making, and also with regard to the general condition of the land market with respect to the decline in values. The case was then adjourned till 4 p.m. to-day. IN CHAMBERS. SPECIAL JURY ASKED FOR. An interlocutory application for a special jury in tho case of Wm. do Renzy and Fraser Ramsay (N.Z.), Ltd., was heard in Chambers yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Cooper. Tho action involved a claim for ,£IO,OOO damages in respect of an alleged breach of agreement under which tho plaintiff, Wm. de Renzy was appointed agent for the sale in Nevr Zealand and Fiji of tho Billows Patent Aerating Machine. Tho defendants asked for a special jury on the ground that expert knowledge was required. Decision was reserved. Their Honours were also asked by the defendant in the action of Charles S. Spooner v. do Renzy—a claim for damages in rcspect of alleged breach of agreement in connection with plaintiff's appointment (by defendant) as agent in Wellington ■ and Hawke's Bay for the Billows Aerating Machine—to issue notice directly to third party (rraser, Ramsay, Now Zealand), Ltd. The order to attach was granted, subject to tho right of the defendant company to file a statement of defenco within seven days of issue. Mr. Gray appeared for Fraser, Ramsay, Ltd., and Mr. A. Fair for Wm. de Renzy in each case. IN DIVORCE. TWO PETITIONS GRANTED. In tho divorce petition of Lucius Charles Ormsby Cary against Edith Lilian Cary (respondent), and Wm. Lome Robinson (co-respondent), on tho ground of misconduct, his Honour granted a decreo nisi (to bo made absolute in three months), with costs against tho co-respondent. Mr. A. Gray appeared for tho petitioner. Tho parties were married in 1897, and after periods of residence ill England and South' Africa, settled in New Zealand. There were six children of tho marriage. Subsequent to petitioner's return from a visit to Durban, ho became awaro of his wife's intimacy with co-respondent, whom he had never seen, and following upon certain events his wifo left liim. A decreo nisi (to be made absolute in three months) was also granted Chandler v. Chandler, on the grounds of misconduct. Mr. Gray appeared for tho petitioner.