LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1572, 16 October 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. UPKEEP OF OLD MEN IN A HOME WHO MEETS Tltli COST?

A finest ion ns io wlio should boar, cost of jiminUiininw t-erlain inmates tlio TaurnnKi Old Jlt'ii's Home in Ashburton, came before tlio Court oi Appeal yesterday morninjj. Tlie Uench oceupied by the Chiet' iustice (Sir liohorl. Stout), ilr. Justice J)efniiston, -Mr. -lus- • (ieo Kdw-ards ifr. -7u>iic*c Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. The parlies ware the North Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, plaintiff, and the Ashburton Hospital and Charitable Aid Board defendant

'Mr. T. \W Stringer, K.C., withjiim Mr. ji. L. Lane, appeared for the North Canterbury Hoard, while Mr. CI. Harper, with him Mr. IT. C. Orbell, appeared for the Ashburtou Hoard.

By the amending Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act, 1010, the North Canterbury Hospital Board and the Ashburton and North Canterbury "United Charitable Aid Board were dissolved and the North Canterbury Hospital and C'haritablo Aid Board (plaintiff in this action) Ava.s the successor thereof within the meaning of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act, 1000. Districts were defined by the Art and the property of the dissolved boards .situated within the district of the North Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (plaintiff) and that within the Ashburton Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (defendant) became the respective, property of these bodies with Ihe exccplion of the Taurangi Old Men's Home. This home, which is situated at Hampstead in thu Ashlmrton district, was vested in the North Canterbury Board (plaintiff) and is now under the control of that body. \ Tn May. 1011, nil account was rendered . bv the North Canterbury Board to the Ashburton Board (defendant) claiming payment of the sum of oCITT in?. Id. for maintenance of the inmates of th? said institution. Thi.s account included the maintenance of certain inmates who were resident in the Home prior to April 1. 1010. and who were allo»ed to. have resided in the county of Ashburton 1x»foro admission. The Ashburton Board disclaimed liability for the maintenance of. these la>! -mentioned inmates. After a conference of ihe two hoards, the matter was referred /o .'he Hon. George FowJds /then Minister in charge ot' the Department \ who ruled in favour of the North Canterbury Hoard. Actiuji upon this ruling, the North Canterbury Hoard then submitted a revised account for <£Itil lis. 2d. . The Ashburton Board, however, refused to accept the .Minister's decision in Ihe inatter. contending that it was ultra vires, the dispute not being one that- could be referred to the Minister. The dispute was then taken f to the Supreme Court, and after a special ease had been stated it: was removed into the Court of Appeal for argument; J,y the order of Mr. Ju.sticc Denniston.

The questions submitted to the Court for answer were:

(a) Whether the defendant hoard are liable by virtue of the ruling of the Minister for the maintenance of the said inmates of, the Taurangi Homes I' Or. in the alternative:

(b) Whether the defendant Ijoard are, under tile circumstances, e.stoppctl from denying tlis validity ut I lie ruling of tlio Hon. George Fowlds? If these questions are answered in tlio negnlivc. (lion: (c) AVhntlier the defendant, board are responsible for the of inmates of Ihe Ibnie, who were resident in the institution prior to April 1. llltfl,' and who liad resided iu the county Ashburton before admission to the home? At the conclusion of argument, their Honours expressed the unanimous opinion that the XortU Canterbury Board were entitled to recover from the Ashburtcn Hoard the cost of the...maintenance of inmates of tlio Taurangi Home, who were resident in the institution prior to April 1, 1910. ' It had. been sh.owij. by evidence that: some (or all) of those inmates, for whom the North. Canterbury lioard claimed, had been resident in the Ashburton district, and the Ashburton Board was therefore liable for their maintenance. Question (c) was answered in the affirmative, it bein l ? considered unnecessary to answer questions'(a) and, (b). Costs on the middle scale as from distance were allowed. The matter of costs in the Lower Court and further dealing with ihe. ease were referred to the Supremo Court. MORE OF DEATH DUTIES ACT. CASE FKO-V DUNEDIX. A question turning upon the construction of Section 0 of the Death Duties Amendment Act, 1911; was submitted to the Court, of Appeal yesterday in connection with a Dunedin case in which the Commissioner of Stamps was annealing from a decision of Air. Justice "Williams, who some time a?o ruled that: a certain memorandum of transfer was not liable for duty. The Bench yesterdav was occuuied by the Chief Justice (Sir Holiert S(out). Jlr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Jlr. Justice Cooper, and Jlr. Justice Chapman. The appellant was the Commissioner of Stamps, and the. respondent was James George Finch, merchant, of Oaniaru.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond) appeared for the Commissioner of Stamps, while Mr. A. S. Adams, of Dunedin, appeared for Finch. Tt' appeared that the respondent (James George Finch) possessed certain land of which the equity of redemption was worth .C' 2182. Ho desired to give half of it to his two sons and. he executed a memorandum of' transfer vestimr this share in them for a pnrinent of ,£IOO. The Commissioner of Stamps assessed the memorandum as being liable to gift duty at the rate of 5 per cent. Finch, however, dis"uted this and a case was staled for the Supreme Court at Dnnedin. Mr. Justice Williams, who heard the case, held that the .£IOO paid for the gift (half share) must be deducted from the value (,£1091), and as this deduction would bring the value below ,£IOOO. no duty was payable, for gifts up to .£IOOO in any year.are exempt altogether from dutv.

It was from this decision that the Commissioner of Stamps now appealed Io the Court of, Appeal. Argument had not concluded yesterday when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THE CIVIL CASES. Before "Mr. W. 0. Hidrfell, S.M., Charles Baker, carrying on a house and land agency business in Wellington under the name of Baker Bros., proceeded against Bernard Dolicrtv, warehouseman, and Emma Fanny Lieber, widow, both of Wellington, claiming the sum of ,t!)S Ss. flil. for commission on J ho sale of a right of way of 15ft. frontage to Manners Street to the T'eople's Picture i'nlace Theatre Co. for .£3937 10s. In the alternative- plaintiff claimed ,£62 10s. as commission for negotiating a Rilu to Francis Loudon for «£2f>oo on January !), ISII2, of part of the lancl above mentioned, viz., 10ft. frontage. For the plaintiff it was set forth that in connection with the purchase of a right of way, to give the necessary frontage to the People's Picture I'alace, a contract for the purchase of certain land suitable for this purpose—the property of Doherty and Liebei—was completed in August 18 last. It was contended that the completion of this contract was accomplished through plaintiff's negotiation*. liaker and Francis T.otidon gave evidence respecting Hit wsotialions in regard to selling the property. For the defence, it was contended that Mr. Baker gave lo Doherty three names, viz., T. Bush, draper, Wellington, .T. 1). Nathan, merchant, Wellington, and W. .1. Loudon, Sydney, as being directors lit the company, when, at the time of the sale, there was no company. .Mr. linker, s:\iil in (lie Imx dial lie was mi-laken ill reprc.-cii'ittg la liolierly Hint Xaihan and liiHi Mere 'wo i:f tile director-. , .Mr. Saloli entered two non-suit (mints which hi-' Wor-hip agreed lo rc-erve. One of the poinK «athat the 'ale note held In- London was not sufficient evidence within, iln- meaning of I lie 'latnle of Fraud--, and the otfier was that Baker at the time of the sale inado wilful misrepresent;!tious of Iu evjdcnco Poverty, said that

Baker was wiling land without his instruction-. 'l'hf ease wa- adjourned iiniil

liY.-erved (li'ci-i.ui was given by Dr. ,\l 'A rt hur, K.M., in a ciim' in wliit !i .Itili 11-ton ami Co. su..ml Jonathan Ltd. ioi" Jc|;( (is.. for gnods .-old and delivered fn defendant by tfir ])UimtiiV-. His Wor.-hip held that the gr.mU had ben <lc!ivt'li.'d, nr.il that (lie defendant was responsible lor ihe value of quails not l'elurncd. Ho gave judgment l'ur the yhiiiitill's fur (hi? lull amount and cnsl-.

His Wor-hip also gave re.-erved decision in a ruse in which Edwards and Trout sued Amy .Noll for !lio sum of ..Ultia, being lii" sum "of .£l5O lent, by Hie plaintili Edwards In tin- defendant, under agreement doted .1 illy 27, 1910, and .~is interest on the said sum, at the rate of 5 per eenl. per annum, from .Inly 27, 19111, l» July 27, His Worship held that plaintiff Edwards did make a gift of the loan to the defendant, and for some reason or reasons nut disclosed, afterwards became sorry. Continuing, his Worship said that if he were to think otherwise it would he necessary for him to prefer the plaintiU's statement lo that of the defendant and her daughter, of Mrs. Meade and her father, of Mrs. Clarke. Jn brief, that the witnesses for the defence had formed a conspiracy. Judgment was given for the defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff, by default, in tin; following cases heard before Dr. M'Artluir, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning James Doherty v. W. A. itroailbenl. .i'li Ids. !)d., costs .£1 3s. Gil.; T. and W. Young v. E. L. Cluirfey, ,£2 lis. Ud., costs 10.-.; W. L Jenness V Kobert Bee, .£2 8?., costs 10s.; the Dresden Piano Company v. Ernest W, Haines, ~£l 2s. 3d., costs 10s.; A. and T. Burt, Ltd., v. l'redk. Wm. Mills, .£12.1 10s. Bd., costs .£6 Is. fid.; j\".Z. Slate Guaranteed Advances Office v. David Andrews, .£23 7s. id., coats .i;I 55.; James and Frank M'l'arlauil v.. Joseph Lewis, .Clfi Ms. 2d., costs .£1 10s. Od.; E. and M. Cooper v. Robt. Black, .£l, costs 55.; Frank Hodgson v. W. H. M. Stevens, .£2, costs 55.; Clara A. Tregonniug v. Tregca ami Taylor, .£!i, costs J! 3s. Gil.; Harrington's JC.K. limited, v. Charles Zainey, ,£7 -Is. 10il„ costs ,CI lis. Gil.; Maria Thornton v. Mrs. A. Shaw, ,I*lo 10s.. costs .£1 Ills. lid.; .1. 'B. Clarkson and Company, Ltd., v. Lester H. lleid. '43 IK fid., costs Ss. .Miss Mary Williams, domestic, surd John Dclahenty, jeweller, for.llls, (id., money alleged to have bsen paid for a brooch which had not been delivered. Defendant contended thai the payments made were in respect of a 11nineJi to till; value of .£2 Ills., which lie had supplied to (lie plaintiff under a hire-purchase arrangement, which she bad failed to carry out.' His Worship uphold this contcn--1 ion, and gave judgment for the defendant, who undertook to hand over the broceh when the payments, a-_ arranged, had been completed. Mr. Wilsan appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Filzgibboii appeared for -Ilie defendant. .

s,. CUES' AXD SECOND COOK,

Before Dr. .A. M'Arthur, S.JI.. Mr. D. Carinodv (Inspector of Award.-,) sought to enforce two penalties against. William: Barnes, keeper of the Star Caio. Wellington, for bavins during August, and September paid a chef and a second cool; less than the rate of wages provided by the Wellington Cooks' and. Waiters' Award. It was alleged that lie had paid the chef 4!)s. per week and loilgin?, instead of 50s. a week and lodging; and the second cook '225. 6d. per week with lodging, instead of 275. fid. and lodging. Defendant admitted the first ofTence, but contended that he was not guilty iu respect to the second charge, because lie had paid off the arrears of wages: II? also pleaded ignorance of the award, because he had only been in business a little while, and had nol had lime to examine its provisions. His Worship held, that defendant should have known what was in the award, ami fined him .1!.. POI,IO: CASKS. (Before Mr. W. G. liiddell, 5..M.) Mr. W. G. I'iddell, S.'M.. delivered a decision regarding the attendance at the Tmitham camp on April 11, lili'i. of a Territorial named Robert llogg at the_.M:igistrab's- Court vesterday. His Worship said that defendant, who was represented by Mr. O'Kegan, admitted that he was. auteat from camp, but .-aid as a Territorial under Part 3 of the Act, he was not liable io u penalty under Section 51. IMcni'r.uit was a volunteer when the Defence Act. 11109 came into operation, and under. Section 20 of that Act he automatically became a Territorial without jiassing the general training section mentioned under J'art li of the Act. Section 51 enacts (inter alia) (hat every person who without lawful excuse evades or foils to render the personal service requirt-d of hiin under l'art VI of the. Act is liable to a penalty. Part Yt does not appear to include or apply to those Territorials who wep originally volunteers, as Section lij, Sulj-Sec-tion (C) (amended by an Act of lill-), refers to the liability of persons between IS ond 2") years of age to !>.' trained in the general training section, or in the Territorial Force in the case of their transfer to I hat force. Continuing, his Worship

said that by Section '2;'. provision is made for the transfer from the general training

K'ctiiu lo the Territcria! Force. Defendant has never been in the general training section, nor lias he been transferred from'it to the Territorial force, and so, it is doubtful whether ho comes clearly within the provisions of Section 51. His Worship dismissed the information.

The following cases of insobriety were dealt with:—Emily Foster, fined ss„ in default L'f hour-' imprisonment; John William Lucas, ss„ or lit hour- imprisonment ; /Patrick Hicc, 10s., or seven days' imprisonment; Cornelius O'Connor, litis., nr three days' imprisonment; Timothy Donovan, .£:}, or twenty-one ilays' imprisonment; George Frederick A\ illianis, 10s., or twenty-four hours' imprisonment.

W. G. T.oeur was ordered to pay 'Is. per week towards the maintenance of his illegitimate child. Costs amounting to .-'-'7 odd were allowed against Loner.