LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2824, 15 July 1916, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL THE BEGG LEGACY CASE THE APPEAL DISMISSED. Their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Donni'ston, and Mr. Justice Stringer, sitting as a Court of Appeal, delivered judgment yesterday morning at the Supreme Court in the case of the Commk-sioner of Stamps against A, M. Bcgg and Charles Begg, both of Dunedin, cxeoutors of tlie will of t'ho late Jessie Begg, widow, a olaini of ,£6611 15s. (id., estate duty on the dutiable estate of the late Jessio Begg, which was assessed at •i'SS.lli 13s. lOd. It may be remembered that in the Court below the claim of the Commissioner of Stamps was heard before His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, who decided that the gift of the whole of the widow's interest in "Charles Bcgg and Co„ Ltd.," amounting in all to 70,000 shares of_«El each, was made without •consideration, and therefore not assessable to estate duty; and it was from this judgment that 'the Commissioner appealed. The Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.) sought to establish that the grant of an annuity of .£SOO from the business was the consideration, and established a contract; in such ca.se the full estate was dutiable, because the annuity vas made by the children in consideration for their mother transferring all her interest in the company to tliem. The Chief Justice, in tlie course of his decision, anil after reviewing the evidence at' length,' observed that the testator, Mrs. Begg, relinquished her life estate in the business, which was divided among, her children. When, a new company was formed, she was asked to rotain some shares, and she refused; all the shares went to her children. When this arrangement was made there was no mention ol any annuity and no suggestion that «he was to get any benefits whatever for herself. Being a woman of rare frugality, sho had enough to live upon without anything froiu the business whatever. She reserved nothing from the business for herself. When some of the shareholders in the new company subsequently passed a' resolution agreeing to contribute an annuity of ,£SOO, she was not a shareholder, anil she declined to'accept the gift offered. There was no evidence that sho assented to receive the annuity, and although a proportion of tlio divi? dends of certain shareholders accumulated to her credit, she spent none of the accumulations. There was 110 contract between her and her children accompanyj ing the gilt of shares. The foundation of a, contract was "do ut tes," and there ■was no such foundation in this case. The Chief Justice was therefore of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Their Honours Justice Edwards, Bennlston, and Stringer haVing concurre.il, with unimportant variations, the appeal was dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff on the highest scale as in a case from a distance.

Sir John Fiiidlay, K.C., received judgment for the defendants. '