APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 557, 29 October 1902, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

By Telegraph—-Tress Association. Wellington, last night. The case of the Assets Company (Limited) v. the King will he argued in the Court of Appeal this afternoon. The Assets Company was originally registered in Southland, with a capital of L'ouO.UUO. The company lias been carrying on business in New Zealand for a number of years. For suine years it was assumed it was not liable to an annual license fee under the Stamp Acts. Afterwards, however, the Stamp Cilice raised the question, and it was decided—first by the Commissioner of Stamps, and afterwards by the Supreme Court on appeal that the company was bound to take out an annual license. The company tiicicupon paid up -••mars at- the rate of LdOU a year upon a capital of TOGO,DUO, a,.. - ! '■ im “ tlUca P il J

at this rate for a number ol years. Alter.yards the capital of the company was reduced, and m lfc>9o it was .£IOO,OOO. In consequence the amount payable by the company as from that date was diuO a year instead of iklUO. The mistake was not discovered umii the year 1900, and from 1890 up to and inclusive of tiie year 1900 the sum of Tl5O was annually overpaid by the company, or a sum of LTOOO in all. This amount the company now seeks to recover from the Crown by petition under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. The case came before Mr Justice Williams, and His Honor held that the company was entitled to recover. The Crown having appealed from this decision, it was agreed, with a view to bringing certain additional facts before the Court of Appeal, to state a special case. The question now before the Court of Appeal is whether upon the facts as now stated the company is entitled to recover. The main question involved is whether the petition was filed within 1£ months from the date when the claim or j demand arose, within the meaning of i Section 39 of tiie Crown Suits Act, ISSI. The petition was not filed within twelve mouths from the date of discovery of the mistake by the company, but was filed within twelve months from the date of demand of refund made upon the Crown by the company. The question, therefore, is whether the claim arose at the date of discovery or at date of demand.

Mr Hoskiug is appearing for the ecrupany, and Mr Bell for the Crown. The ease is being heard by the Chief Justice, and Judges Denniston, Conoll.y and Edwards,