FULL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 171, 9 April 1918, Page 8

FULL COURT

SITTINGS IN WELLINGTON A QUESTION OF STAMP DUTIES The Full Court sat yeHerday -under the presidency of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), associated with whom were Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. The first case considered was that of Lord Inchcapo v. the Minister of Stamp Duties, a matter on appeal concerning the duty payable upon the transfer of shares in connection with the amalgamation of the Union Steam Ship Company with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and with him Mr. C. G. AVhite, appeared for the appellant (Lord Inchcape), and tho Solicitor-General (Mr. J. AV. fealmond, K.C.) for tbo respondent. At the time of the amalgamation of the two companies one Green possessed 175 ordinary shares in the Union Company, of tlie value of £1 each. These on July' 9, 1917, he transferred to Lord Inchcape in consideration of the sum of £262 10s. in money and £S7 10s. in deferred stock in the P. and O. Company. The market value of this deferred P. and O. stock was shown in the case as £284 7s. 6d. According to Mr. Skerrett, the actual assessment under the Stamp Duties Act of this transfer was at the rate of 3s. for every £50 of the total consideration. The question was whether the duty was payable not only upon the money consideration, but upon the value of the deferred stock. The duty on the conveyance was 10s. on every £50. The appellant contended that the transaction came under the transfer of shares. , . On behalf of the respondent the Solicitor-General submitted that the assessment of duty in this case might be supported on two independent aoid separate grounds: (1) By virtue of Sections 81 and 82 of the Stamp Duties let the transaction was constructively a transaction of shares on sale and was subject to ad valorem duty on the total consideration accordingly; (2) the transaction was m exchange on shares and therefore by Section 2 of the Stamp Duties Amendment Act, mi, was liable to the same ad valorem duty as a transfer of snares on sale. The Court reserved its decision.

A DISPUTED INJUNCTION

RIVAL ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETIES.

Matters relating to pisciculture were involved in an appeal from _ a decision of Mr. Justice Sim, granting an injunction to the Otago Acclimatisation Society restraining the Southland Acclimatisation Society from taking ova from the Mairirua Stream, which watercourse lies just within the boundaries of the Otago body. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and with 'rim Mr. E. Russell, appeared for the Southland Society (appellants), and Mr. AV. C. MacGregor, &.C., with him Mr. A. R.. Atkinson, for the Otago Society (respondents). The caso was heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Chapman. It was mentioned by Mr. Skerrett that the dispute related to the right of the appellant society to take for the purpose of pisciculture within its own district trout ova from a stream within the district of the Otago Society. The Otngo Society claimed the right to prevent the Southland Society from doing this, by virtue of a proclamation dated March 5, 1917, which reads: "No acclimatisation society shall during the close take any trout for the purpose of pisciculture from the waters of any river -or stream within the boundaries of any other acclimatisation district without the consent of the acclimatisation society from within whose rivers and streams it is proposed to take tijout being first obtained in writing. Couneel pointed out that for several years past tho wippellnnt society had taken trout- ova from the stream in question. The questions at issue were: (1) Whether the regulations under the proclamation were valid; and (2) whether such regulations conferred on the Otago Society such proprietary right as could be enforced by injunction. It was contended that the regulation was ultra vires first because'its purpose and effect were to regulate the activities and tho scope of acclimatisation societies, whereas no such authority was conferred by the statute. The proclamation was tantamount to an alteration of the constitution of the statute. Secondly, the regulations were not for the management of fisheries, but granted to the Otago Society a discretion which might be exercised for no reason or capriciously. Late in the afternoon the further hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning.