LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1562, 4 October 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. THE DEATH DUTIES ACT AGAIN. ■ ONE GIFT OR SEVERAL? ■ An important question under tlio Death Duties Act, 180'J, wns before the Court of Appeal yesterday in. the case of the Commissioner of Stamps v. David Peat, farmer, of Hillside, Wnngnnui. The Chief Justice (Sir .Robert Stout; pioidcd, and associated with him were Mr. Justice Wil- V Hams, Mr. Justice Dsnniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Cliapinan. The Solicitor-Goneral (.Mr. .1. W. Salinoiul) appeared for the Commissioner ot Stamps, wuilc Mr. W. J-f. Cunningham, ot A\ angciiiiii, appeared for David I'ciit. The appeal was from a decision of Mr. .fu.stice Cooper, in a special case for the opinion of tha Supremo Cmivl, stated by tno Commissioner of Stumps, under .Section (in of the Death Duties Act, 11)00..It appeared that by a dred, dated August 2, 11111, it was rccitoit that David Peat had paid eighteen isums of .130 each to tliree persons named, to be held in trust for each of eighteen infant grandchildren of Peat, and raid to each of them on their attaining the age of 34 years. The eighteen sums of JtaOU were paid in the following nianuer: The sum of JiGOOfl in one cheque into- u separate bank account to the credit of the trustees, and the balance of ~£3OOO in one cheque to Messrs. Corry and Cunningham, solicitors of Wnnganui, to the credit of the tni6tees. The- Commissioner of Stamps assessed the deed as being liable to gilt duty (under Part IV of the Death Duties Act, 1909) at the rate of 5 per centum on .£9OOO. David Peat contended, that the deed was exempt from gift duty under Section il of the Death. Duties Act, 1909,_ as constituting eighteen separate gifts of X'soo each. The Supreme Court was therefore asked to say whether the Commissioner had correctly assessed the gift duty. On September .9 last Mr. Justice Cooper delivered his decision, holding that the deed, of gift contained eighteen separate gifts of i'jOO, each gift being contingent on the named beneficiary attaining the age of 24 years. Therefore, the assessment of duly by the Commissioner of Stamps, on the assumption that the itecd was one gift of .£9OOO, was erroneous. Peat's appeal against the assessment was accordingly allowed with costs £"> ss. His Honour, however, stated that this order was not to prejudice the Commissioner of Stamps'in'having determined the question whether each named lieucficiary under the deed has n contingent interest -, n every other gift, which may increase his or her share for' assessment purposes to a sum over ,£u(10. Vrom this decision the Commissioner of Stamps now appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law. 'Mr. Cunningham raised a prclimimry objection to Hie appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from the determination of the Supreme Court in a case taken under the Death Duties Act. 1909. Argument was heard on this point, niid the Court then reserved decision and directed that argument should be proceeded with on the main issue. This was concluded before 1 p.m. , Decision was reserved.

STRUCK OFF ROLL.

CECIIi MOORE 'LWNSEXD'S CASE. Cecil Moore Townseml, who was formerly in practice at Waitara, is to be struck off the roll of solicitors. This Is the rost|lt of a rule absolute mailc by the Court of Appeal yesterday morning. T.ho Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout.), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justine Dennislon, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman. It appeared that Townsend had received tlie sum o? .£IOO to pay off a mortgage, and had failed to carry out his trust, had' since left the Dominion, arid is believed to be now living in Sycl- . ney. A. rule nisi had been granted at New Plymouth, and the Taranaki -Law Society now moved to make this rule absolute. 1 '"■,' : "' ■ '■ '■■ Mr. R. H. Webb anpeared for the Taranaki Law Society. There was no appearance on behalf of 'Townsend. The-Court granted -the order, making the rule absolute, with ten" guineas co.tts.