LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1630, 23 December 1912, Page 6

LAW REPORTS.

APPEAL CASES. rOUI? JUDGMENTS DELIVERED. FASCINA CO. PATENTS, THE NEW ZEALAND EIGHTS.

Reserved judgment in an appeal against a decision of 'the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in dismissing a motion' for nonsuit in a claim for damages was delivered by the Court of Appeal on Saturday morning. The Bench at the hearing was occupied by -Mr. Justice Williams, Sir. Justice Dcnniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Tho appellants were Eraser Ramsey (Now Zealand), Ltd., general agents, Wellington, and the respondent was William do Eenzy, agent! Palmerston North. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. T. Young, appeared for the appellants. Miv A. W. Blair, with Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared for the respondent. The case involved a heavy claim for damages for alleged breach , of agreement in. respect of the New Zealand riglits of a patent aerated water manufacturing machine known as the Billows Patent Aerating Machine. It cams Wore the Court in June last, when it appeared that in the month of January, 1911, the Foe-, cina Manufacturing Company, of Melbourne (proprietors of the patent rights of the Billows Patent Aerating Machines), appointed Fraser Eamsay (New Zealand), Ltd., agents in New Zealand and Fiji for the sale of the machines. On or about October 25, 1311, <!e Renzy entered into an agreement with Frassr Eamsay, by which they appointed him sole agent in 'New Zealaud and Fiji for the sale of tho machines for one year, the agreement to te renewed , for another five years on certain conditions. Subsequently the Fascina Manufacturing Company, of Melbourne, refused to recognise the agreement with dc E-enzy, and refused also to supply Mm with machines. Further they threatened action against him to restrain him from dealing with such machines in New Zealand. As a'-Tesult'of this, de Eenzy brought ah action against Fraser Ramsay, claiming damages for alleged loss of profit on the sale of.the machines for six years. There was a second action — Spooner y. de Benzy—depending, on' the main action and heard at tlio same time.

A special jury of twelve was empanelled to'hear the case, and after a lengthy hearing de Renzy was awarded .£7OO damages ; and Spooner .£2OO damages. Tho following nonsuit points, .which had been raised by Sir John Findlay for the defence, were reserved for argument: 1. That Clauso 12 of the agreement . (stating that the agreement with de Renzy was upon the same terms and conditions as the agreement , between the Fascina Co. and Fraser ■Bamsay) made the existence of de Benzy's agreement dependant upon the existenoe of the agreement with the Fascina Co. 2. That there was nothing in the agreement binding Fraser. Eamsay to continue the Fascina agreement, and that if they lost the agency, or gave it up, d'a Ecnzy had no right of action. • i 3. That under the agreement there . was no obligation on the part. of Fraser Kamsay (a) to ' supply machines and goods at all, or (b) to ' eupply them for any fixed term.

On August 7, these nonsuit points were argued before the. Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoat), who subsequently dismissed the motion, for nonsuit. It was from this decision that Fraser Ramsay appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law. The Court of Appeal judges were unanimously of opinion that the judgment of the-Chief Justice should'be upheld.-The. apr>eal was therefore dismissed with costs on" the highest scale. DEATH DUTIES ACT. • APPLIED' TO>.DUNEDIN CASE. A question turning upon, the construe-; tion of-Section 9 of the Death Duties Amendment Act, 1911, was recently submitted to the Court of Appeal in connection with a Diuedin case in which the Commissioner of Stamps was appealing from a decision of Mr. Justice Williams, who some time ago ruled (hat a certain memorandum, of transfer was not liable for duty. Reserved judgment was delivered on Saturday. The Bench at the hearing was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), llr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice.Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. The appellant was the Commissioner of Stamps, and the respondent was James George FJnch, merchant, of Onmaru. The Solicitor-General' (Mr. J. W. Salmoud) appeared for the Commissioner of Stamps, while Mr, A. S. Adams, of Dunedin, appeared for Finch. It appeared that the respondent (James George Finch) possessed certain land of which the equity of redemption was worth .£2182. He desired to give half of it to his two sons and he executed a memorandum of transfer vesting this share in them for a payment of £100., The Commissioner of Stamps assessed the memorandum as being liable to gift duty at the rate of 5 per cent. Finch, however, disputed this and a case was stated for the Supreme Court at Dunedin. Mr. Justice Wulia-ms, who heard the case, held that the £100 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 duty. It was from this decision that the Commissioner of Stamps subsequently appealed to tho Court of Appeal. In the judgments delivered on Saturday, their Honours all agreed that the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Williams—that the gift was not dutiable—was correct. The' appeal was therefore dismissed with costs on the lowest scale as from a distance.