LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1695, 11 March 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

(before His Honour Air. Justice Chapman.) GIFT DUTY. appeal from assessment. ON £25,000.

Arising out of the operation of the Death Duties Act, 1909, and an assessment for gift duty under Part IV thereof, an appeal was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. A special case in connection therewith was stated by the Commissioner of Stamps, under Section GO of the Act. The parties were Maud Arini Tiakitai Perry, widow, of Crissoge, Hawke's Bay, appellant, and the Commissioner of Stamps, respondent. Mr. C. P. Skerrctt, K.C., with him Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared for Mrs. Perry, while Mr. H. U. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Commissioner of Stamps. It was submitted that on ; Deceniber 3, 1912, a deed of settlement was executed by Mrs. Perry and by Jas. M'Plierson .u'Lean, bank inspector, of Wellington, and W. J. Stratton, accountant, of Hastings. By this deed of settlement Mrs. Perry granted and conveyed to M'Lean and Stratton the sum of .625,000, to be held by them on trust to pay the income thereof during her life-time, and after her death to lie held for one or more of her children as she should appoint. The Commissioner of Stamps assessed the deed as being liable, to gift duty under Part IV of the Death Duties Act, 1909 (as amended by tho Death Duties Amendment Act, 1911), at the rate of 5 per centum on .£25,000, and also as being liable under Section 53 of the Act to a stamp duty of ten shillings. Mrs. Perry was dissatisfied with the assessment,.and required the Commissioner of Stamps to state a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Commissioner contended that the transaction evidenced by the deed was a gift within the meaning of Part IV of the perty which was the subject of the gift, made by Mrs. Perry with a reservation of a benefit or advantage in favour of the donor by way of an interest in the property which was the subject of the gift, and therefore that it was liable under Section 9 of the Death Duties Amendment Act, 1911, to gift; duty on the total-value of the slim of .£25,000, without making any allowance or deduction in respect of the value of the life interest in the income' thereof reserved to the donor. Mrs. Perry contended that the deed was merely a voluntary contract within the meaning of Section, 40 of the Act of 1909, .and was not liable to any gift duty, inasmuch as it had not attached to or affected the legal or equitable title to the property to which it related. _ The questions for the opinion of the Court were:— , ' ~, (1) Is the said deed liable to gift duty as assessed by - the Commissioner? 1 ... (2) If not, is it liable to any gitt ' duty, and if so on what value? After hearing legal argument, his Honour reserved decision.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ALLEGED GAMING HOUSE. 4. charge of keeping a common gaming house at 277 Cuba Street was preferred against Samuel J arvis; Itichard Lagai was charged with assisting Jarvis in keeping a common gaming house; and Gustavo Dibing, H. E. Sayers, Steve Hanson, W. Mason, Augustus Davis, James Ryan, John Walker, JJ. G. Woods, and —. M'Carthy were charged with being found on February 1G on the premises, occupied by Jarvis as a common gaming house. On the application ol' Mr. H. E. I/"ans, who represented the defendants on behalf of Mr. Myers, an adjournment until March 14 was granted. • THEFT OF WOOL. Arthur Walker Tyreman, an employee, of the Wellington Harbour Board, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing 58lb, of wool, valued at 305., the property of the Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. O'Regan. who appeared for accused, stated that his client had asked permission to take tlio wool, which was lying on the floor of "J" shed. The accused took the wool in good faith, and made no attempt to take it secretly. His Worship convicted Tyrcman, and ordered him to come up for sentence when called upon. ASSAULT AND ALLEGED PERJURY. Margaret Williams- proceeded against her husband, George AVilliams, charging him with assault.. The parties concerned resided in. Martin Street, and the assault was alleged to have taken place on Wednesday, March 5, "in the afternoon. A charge of theft of .£2 4s. in money was also preferred against Williams, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Mr. P. Jackson represented the complainant, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for the defendant. The woman stated in evidence that the defendant cams to her house on the Wednesday afternoon, and brutally assaulted her. She called a policeman to take the defendant off the premises. Corroborative evidence was tendered by Constable Lambert.

His Worship said .that he did not belitvo that tlio theft had been committed, but he did believe that the defendant had committed the assault. He convicted and fined defendant „C 3, and costs .£1 ls„ in default 14 days' imprisonment on the charge of assault, and dismissed the information of theft. Further, his Worship was of opinion that the defendant Williams had committed perjury, and it was a proper case for the police to lay information. 1 .Sub-Inspector Sheehan asked his Worship whether he suggested that the police should take immediate action, but his Worship-said it was not necessary to take action immediately, insobriety; Charles Bartam was fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment,' for insobriety. Thomas 0 Brien, on a similar charge, was fined 10s., or, _,in default, -IS hours' imprisonment. Two first offenders were convicted and discharged, .ind ■ another was fined 55., in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. For a breach, of his prohibition order, and on a charge of insobriety, John Mansfield was convicted and declared an habitual drunkard, and sentenced to one month':, imprisonment.

Arthur 'L'onks was made the subject of a prohibition order for a period of one year, operative ill Wellington and Hutt districts. John Smith, charged with drunkenness and committing an indecent act, was fined »C 3, in default. 14 days' imprisonment. OTHER CASES. Charles Ogicr (Mr. W. Perry) was charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order. His Worship adjourned the matter until March IS, and ordered defendant to pay .£l, balance of arrears, before that date. Thomas J. Martin was ordered to pay 18s. per week towards the support of his wife, Doris Martin. Agnes Watson Jackson applied for a separation order against her husband, Willie B. Jackson, on the grounds of failing to maintain. His Worship granted the order, and gave the custody of the children to the applicant. Esther Carr applied for a maintenance order against her husband. His Worship granted tho application, and ordered defendant to pay ,£1 per week towards Hie support of his wife and 10s. per week towards the support of two children, the custody of the children being' given lo the applicant. For using obscene language in a public street, Thomas Ridout was fined XH, in default. 11 days' imprisonment. Joseph Canilk'ld. seaman, and Dennis M'Grath, fireman, each 'pleaded guilty to a charge of deserting from tho steamer Ttuahino, and were sentenced Ui It days' imprisonment, and ordered to bo placed

on board the ship at the termination of « their sonteiieo. .> Lottie Hallett was charged with assault- ; in? Margaret Williams on March 4. The ] defendant, wild was represented by Jlr. » Meredith, pleaded not Kiiilty. The com- 5 plaintuit, who was represented .by Jlr. f .lackson, stated that defendant had struck ' her across the face. The evidence, his i Worship said, was of a very contradictory K nature, and he dismissed the case. »