DEATH DUTIES ACT, 1909.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1577, 22 October 1912, Page 3

DEATH DUTIES ACT, 1909.

THE DECISION. An important decision bearing mi the Death Duties Act, 1809, was delivered by the Court of Appeal yesterday morning, a\ the case of tho Commissioner of Stamps v. David Peat, farmer, of Hill; side, Wanganui. The. Chief Justice (Sir Robert Htout) presided, and associated with him were Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Jfr. Justice Chapman. At tho hearing,- the Solicitor-General (Jlr. .[. W. Salmond) appeared for tho Commissioner of Stamps, while, II r. W. H. Cunningham, of Wanganui, appeared for David Peat.

The appeal was from a decision of Mr. Justice Cooper, in a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, stated by tho Commissioner of Stamps, under Section GO of the Death Duties Act, 1000. ]t appeared that bv a deed, dated August 2, Mil. it wa* recited'that David Peat had paid eighteen sums of X'JOO each to three persons named, to be held in trust for each of eighteen infant grandchildren of Peat, and paid to each of them on their attaining tho nge of 2-1 years. The eighteen sums of £iM were paid in the following manner-.—Tho sum of .£6OOO in one cheque into a separate bank account I/, the credit of the trustees, and tho balance of ,£3OOO in one cheque to Messrs. Corry and Cunningham, solicitors, of Wanganui, to the credit of the'trustees. Tho Commissioner of Stamps assessed the deed as being Jiablo to gitt duty (under Part IV of the Death Duties Act, 1900) ,nt tho rate of a per centum on ,£9OOO. David Peat contended that the deed was exempt from gift duty under Section U of the Death Duties Act, l!) 09, as constituting separate gifts of .£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 tho deed of gift contained eighteen separate gifts of ifioOO, each gift being contingent on the named beneficiary attaining tho age of 24 years. Therefore ' the assessment of duty by the Commissioner of Stamps, on the assumption that the deed was ono gift of £%D\), was erroneous. Peat's apjjeal against the assessment was accordingly allowed, with costs .£5 ss. His Honour, however, stated that this order was not to prejudice the Commissioner of Stamps in having determined the question whether each named beneficiary under the deed has a contingent interest in every other gift, which may increase his or her share for assessment purposes to a. sum over .£SOO.

From this decision the Commissioner of Stamps now appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law.

Jfv. Cunningham raised a preliminary objection to the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from the determination of the Supreme Court in a case taken under the Death .tjntip's Act, WO!), but tho Judges were unanimously of the opinion •that the right of appeal did lie. 'lheir Honours were also unanimous in the opinion that the gift must be treated as a single disposition of .£3OOO to tho trustees. The decision of Mr. Justice Cnoper was accordingly reversed, and the appeal allowed.' SLANDER ACTION. TEGUMENT ON NONSUIT POINT. The Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) 1 presided in the Court of Appeal yetlorday, when new busiuess came on for hearing. Associated with' his Honour were Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, aud Mr. Justice Chapman. The appeal was from a. decision of Mr. Justice Edwards, in dismissing a motion for nonsuit in a Masterton case of alleged slander. Tho parties were Charles Bowles, farmer, of Waihakeke, appellant, and Sarah Emma Armstrong, widow, of Cartertofi, respondent. The slander was alleged to have been contained in statements (implying theft) nindo by tho defendant in December last and in Janunry last. Tho action first came on in Masterton oil March 22. After several witnesses had been hoard, Mr. Pollings (counsel for defendant) applied for a nonsuit,, on the grounds that• the statements alleged to have been made were privileged, nnd that there was no evidence of malico.

His Honour declined to nonsuit, but reserved decision on the question of privilege.

.After witnesses for the defence had been heard, tho jury retired, and returned with a verdict for plaintiff, to .whom.they awarded ,£IOO damages. His Honour did not enter up judgment, but reserved tho case for further consideration in Wellington, where the question of privilege raised by counsel for the defence could be argued.

Argument was heard on the point in Wellington on May 7, when Mr. Hollings again moved for a nonsuit. . \ His HbttOftr subsequently dismissed the motion for nonsuit, and, in July last, judgment was entered for the plaintiff (Mrs. Armstrong) in accordance with tho jury's finding. From this decision the defendant (Bowles) now appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in fact and a Mr. A. W. Blair, with Mr. P. L. Hollings, of Masterton, appeared for the appellant (Bowles), while Mr. A. Gray, with Mr. Colcman Phillips, of Carterton, appeared for the respondent (Mrs. Armstrong). Legal argument had not concluded at 4.30 p.m. when the Court was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.