LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1812, 26 July 1913, Page 18

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL,

THE GIFT DUTY ON £25,000. ' MRS. PERRY'S CASE. SUMMARY OF OTHER DECISIONS. Arising out of tho operations of the Death Duties Act, 1909, ami an assessment for gift <luty, under Part 1 thereof, an appeal was heard recently by his' Honour Mr. Justice Chapmau. A special case was stated by the Commissioner of Stamps, under Section lifl of the Act. The parties were Maud Arini Tinkitai Perry, widow, of Crissoge, Hawkc's Bay, appellant, and tho Commissioner of Stamps, respondent. At the hearing, Mr. C. P. Skerrott, K.C., with him. Mr. G. 11. Fell, .appeared for Mrs.. Perry,.while ill. H. 11. Ostler, of t'he Crown Law Office, appeared for tho Commissioner of Stamps. It was submitted that on' December 3, 1912, a deed of settlement was executed by Mrs. Perry .and. by Jas, M'Pherson M'Lcau, bank inspector, of Wellington, and W. J. Stratton, accountant, of Hastings. By this deed cf settlement, Mrs. Perry granted and conveyed to M'Lean and Stratton the sum of JclafiW, to bo held by them on trust to pay tho income thereof during her lifetime, and after her death to bo held for one or moro of her children as sho Should appoint. The Commissioner of Stamps assessed the deed as being liable to gift duty under Part IV of tho Death Duties .Act, 1909 (as amended by the Death Duties Amendment Act, 1U11), 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 tho Commissioner of Stamps to state a case for the opinion of tho Supreme Court. The contention of the Commissioner was that the transaction evidenced by the deed was ft gift within the meaning: of 'Part IV. of tho Act of the property which was the subject of tho gift, mado by Mrs. Perry, with a reservation of a benefit or advantage in favour of tho donor by way of an interest in the property whic'hi was tho subject of tho pit, and that therefore it was liable under Section 9 of tho Death Duties Amendment Act, 1911, to ■gift duty on the total valuo of tho sum of .£25,000, without making any allowance or deduction in respect of the valuo of the lifo interest in tho income thereof reserved to tho donor. Mrs. Perry contended that tho deed was merely a. voluntary contract within tho meaning of Section 40 of the Act of 1909, and was not liable to any gift duty, inasmuch, as it had not svttachejl to or affected tho legal or equitable titlo to tho property to which it related. Yesterday it was announced that tho decision was to the effect that tho appeal should bo dismissed. ] CLAIM FOR ALLEGED LIBEL.

BOOK ENTRIES RE MILK. Certain nonsuit points which had been raised in a Taranaki action for alleged libel were- decided in the Court of Appeal yesterday. The plaintiff in the auciou was Arcnur Howard I'layle, share-milker, of luaha, near Manaia. Tho detoudaut was tho Rdverdalo Ooporativo Duiry Factory Co., Ltd., of luverdale, near Manaia. Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. D. G. Smart, of Hawera, appeared for t'ho plaintilf (I'layle), while Jl-r. C. B. Morison, K.C., with Mr. 1 , . O'Dea, of ilawora, appeared for tne defeudaut company. From the statement of claim put forward at the original hearing it appeared that Playlo was employed by Alfml Willcocks, farmer, of Riverdale, to carry on tho business of dairy farmmg>.ou . \Villcocks's faa-ni, and toUlelivex tlio-milk to the factory for the defendant company. Willcocks took no part in. tho milking or in supplying the milk to the factory. Tho defendant company kept a test-book in which they made entries concoruing milk delivered to the factory from different sources. It was in consequence of an entry made in reference to Willcocks's milk that the present action was commenced. Playlo alleged that at the time this entry was mado it was generally known that he was working for Willcocks a.nd delivering milk in the hitter's name. He alleged that the entry in the book meant that large quantities of water had been added to tho milk by him (Playle) or with his authority, and us ho had suffered serious injury by tho publishing of thesu statements, he claimed .£5Ol damages. The defence was a denial that the words woro capablo of any defamatory meaning. The test published did not impute any malpractice to Playle, and in a resolution t'he directors stated that they were of opinion that tho water (jot into the milk accidentally. The jury who heard tho caso found that tho words and figures complained of referred to tho plaintiif (Playle), and that they meant that largo quantities of water had been added to the milk by Playlo or by his authority. They found that although . tho milt did contain water not originally in the milk, it did not do so to the extent shown in tho test-book. The plaintiff was accordingly awarded Ji3s damages. Nonsuit points, which had been raised by counsel for the defence, were left open for argument in the Court of. Appeal. The points were as follow:— There was not sufficient cvidenco to go to the jury that tlio words aud figures complained of were published o£ and concerning the plaintiff. The innuendo alleged in the amended statement of claim was not justified by tho words and figures complained of. There was no evidence that tho defendant company was awaro that the plaintiff was .a share-milker. On the decisions of their Honours Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim, tho nonsuit points were dismissed, and judgment in" to be for tho plaintiff. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) dissented.

WILL MATTER. CASE FROM AUCKLAND. Judgment was delivered in the Auckland case which concerned tho construction of the will of tho late Thomas Belcher. The plaintiffs were John Bollard and others, trustees of tho will. Tho defendants were Allied Belcher and Henry Ernest Belcher, two sons of the deceased. At tho hearing, Mr. E. l'\ lladfield appeared for the plaintiffs (tho trustees); Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared for tho defendants, while Sir. T. Cotter, K.C., of Auckland, with Mr. J. C. Peacock, appeared for tho widow of Thomas Belcher, an elder son of the deceased. Botli of the two sons took immediately a vested estato subject to being divested in certain contingencies, aud the Court now holds that befoi'o eitlier of the sons acquires an absolutely and completely vested cstiite in fec-niniplo in IJie Innd ho must attain tho ago'of .11 years, and must liavo issue capablo of inheriting. If either of the sons die? without having such' issue tho estate shall bo divested and the land pass as on an intestacy.

NEW TRIAL. JOHN WILLOUGHBY'S CASE. The conviction, of John Willoughby. who was some tinio ago charged with having set (ire to a liouso in Tuam Street, Chvistchurch, lias been quashed, licccntly the. Court was engaged in licarinj; counsel on tlio subject of Uio adinissubility of certain evidence in Hie case in which Willoushby was convicted in Christcluireh, in May liu-t, on a charge «I" liis haviiiK set fire to a house in Tuain Street in that city. At tho trial of WilJoujjhby die prosocution olfcrwl cvWeiico t<i tire olVof.t that Willoughby was scon coining nut of the hou.so a littlo while before the outbreak of lire. Counsel for the licensed objected to I ho adini&inii of tlio evidence, and hirf Honour on (h< , bench (Mr. .lii-lic-p J)ennis(on) reserved the. point t<i the Courl of Appral. .Mr. 11. 11. fWli-r nppe;iriMi fur Ih- Cniivii. ami Mr. A. T. JjiHinolly lor I he -.pi^lKint. Iho CoUii-t set aside tho couvictioOj aud

ordered that a now trial should bo held at Cliristchurcli. WANGANUI WILL, Argument was heard recently by the Court in. the Wangonui ease, M'Grcgor v. Eraser, in which certain questions of law had boon removed from tho Supremo Court for argument. Mr. H. D. Bell K.C., with Mr. W. J. Trerulwoll, of Wαnganui, appeared for the defendant, while Mr. C. l>. Kkerrert, K.C., with .Mr. Luughnan. of J'nlmcrston North, appeared l'or tho plaintiff. The mutter concerned the will of tho late Duncan I'rnsor. The- phiintifl' had Ijopn assigned to him tho right to have a certain deed declared void, and the decision of tho Court is that such a right was not assignable, and that the plaintiff could not 6uo in his own name.