THE DEATH DUTIES ACT, 1909.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1585, 31 October 1912, Page 11

THE DEATH DUTIES ACT, 1909.

HOW IT APPLIES, COURT OP APPEAL DECISION". MASTKRTON CASE. Ah interpretation regarding the Death Duties Act, 1909, is contained in a reserved judgment delivered by tli© Court of Appeal yesterday in an originating summons that hud Ijcpu taken out to settle certain points regarding tho will of the lata Ilenry Holmes, sheep-farmer, of Mataliiwi, near Masferton. The summons had been nrgued before the Chief Oustico (Sir Robert Stout), -Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice JMwards, Mr. Justice Cooper,' and Mr. Justice Sim.

The Matters at Issue in Supreme Court. The late Ilenry Holmes died on April 27, 1911,' and probate of his will was granted to William Henry Beetham and Charles Elgar (trustees and executors) on June 27, 1911. The final balance of tho estato of the deceased was assessed by i;he Commissioner of Stamps at .£02,437 14s. lid., and the estate duty thereon (at 9 2-3rils per cent) amounted to ,£OO4O !)s. Sd. The Commissioner assessed the succession of Sydney Emily Mary' Holmes (wife of deceased) at .646,412 175., on which JJ92B 17s. 2d. ia due as succession duty. Tho succession of three infant children, was assessed at <£14,316 7s, lid., on which no succession duty is charged. Other successions not concerned in the proceedings before 1 the Court were assessed at .£1728 103. In April last, the trustees of the will took out an originating summons in order that the Supreme Court might decide as to tho manner in which the estate duty and the succession duty was to bo apportioned among the several successors of the deceased, The parties to the summons were William Henry Beetham and Charles Elgar, trustees of the will, plaintiffs, and* Sydney Emily Mary Holmes, widow of deceased, and John C., Uelle C„ and Sydney C. Holmes, three infant children of deceased, defendants. The following questions were submitted to the Supreme Court for answer:— Whether any part or proportion of the estate duty (and jf so what proportion) is payable by Mrs. Holmes out of tho income accruing to her under the will or otherwise? Whether the succession duty payable in respect of Mrs. Holmes's succession under the will'.is payable by her either out of her income or otherwise? If any part of these duties is payable by Mrs. Holmes (a) can tho plaintiffs, after paying the duties immediately recover from Sirs. Holmes the- part pavablo by her? (b) If not, ought the plaintiffs, after paying the duties, to retain from time to time tho income ' accruing to Mrs. Holmes under the will until the amount of duty payable by her has been ' satisfied ? (c) In case of her death before sufficient income has accrued to satisfy her share of the duties, will the residue of such share be payable out of her estate by her executors or administrators? As tho questions involved were of considerable importance/ the. Chief Justice ordered that the summons be removed into the Court of Appeal for argument. When the case was argued Mr. G. H. Fell appeart'd for tho plaintiffs,.while Mr. A.Gray, with Mr. M. Myers, appeared for the defendants.

Finding of Appeal Court. Mr. Justice 'Williams, who presided ou the Bench yesterday', stated that the judgments Wero rather lengthy to read. A majority of tho Judges were, however, of opinion that tho questions should be answered as follow:—(1) None payable; (&) duties payable by widow; (3) if tho succession duty is paid by tho executors it can' be retained by them out of tho incomo coming to tho widow. Mr. Justico Demiiston read portion, of the judgment of Mr. Justico Edwards, \n which his Honour expressed the opinion that the answer to tho questions put by tho case should bo that tho wholo of tho estate duty and tho succession duty payable in respect of the testator's residuary estate must be paid out of tho corpus thoreof. Tho Court made an order for tho costs of the 'action to to paid out of the estate.

APPEAL UPHELD. ■ NONSUIT IN SLANDER ACTION. Judgment of the Court wis rend by Mr. Justice Williams in tho ease of Bowles v. Ajmstrong, a Wairarapa matter that has caused somo interest. The caso was argued before, the Chief Justice fSir Robert Stout), Mj\ Justice Williams,-Sir. Justioe Denniston, and 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 Waihakoke, appellant, nnd Sarah Emma Armstrong, widow, of Carterton, respondent. Tho slander was alleged to have, been contained in statements (implying theft) made by the defendant in December last and in January last. The action first came on in Mnsterton on March 22. After several witnesses had been heard, Mr. llollings (counsel for defendant) applied for a nonsuit, on the grounds, that the statements alleged to have Leon inado were privileged, and that there was no evidence of malico. t His Honour declined to nonsuit, but reserved decision on the question of privilege. After witnesses for the defenco had been heard, the jury retired, and returned with a verdict for plaintiff, to' whom they awarded .£IOO damages. His Honour did not enter up judgment, tut reserved the case for further consideration in Wellington, where tho question of privilege raised by counsel for the defence could be argued. Argument was heard on tho poin.t in Wellington on May 7, when Mr. Hollings again moved for a nonsuit. His Honour subsequently dismissed the motion for nonsuit, and, in July last, jndgment was ontered for the plaintiff (Mrs. Armstrong) in accordance with tho jury's finding. Frtm this decision tho defendant (Bowles) now appealed, on the "round Hint it was erroneous in fact andlaw. At the hearing. Mr. A. \V. Blair, with Mr. P. L. Hollings, of Masterton, appeared for the appellant (Bowles), while Mr. A. Gray, with Mr. Coleman Phillips, of Carterton, appeared for the respondent (Mrs. Armstrong). Tho Court of Appeal was of/opinion that the words complained of were uttered on a privileged occasion, and that therefore the plaintiff should have been nonsuited. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with costs on the lowest scale as from a distance.