APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2212, 16 October 1907, Page 1

APPEAL COURT.

AN INTERESTING CASE.

Press Association. . WELLINGTON, Oct. 15. llio Court of Appeal to-day began the hearing of in re Moore, deceased, lownend, v. Commissioner of Stamps. Appellant is Annie Quayio Townend, daughter of Geo. Henry Moore, deceased, and co-executor with two executors under his will. Testator died at Christchurch oil July 7, 1905, in his ninety-third year, leaving all his property to liis daughter. His estate in Now Zealand was certified by' respondent to bo of the value of £686,158, on which duty of £34,307 was claimed. Tho executors declined to pay, claiming tho value was £253,936, and the balance, £432,222, was the absolute property of appellant, having come into her possession before her father’s death. Respondent denied this, and claimed alternately that it was put into appellant’s name to evade duty, or that it came into her hands as a deed of gift, and was therefore liable for duty. The Commissioner for Stamps petitioned for leave to examine appellant as to how she became possessed of these moneys, and the whole case was moved into the Court of Appeal for argument. Mr. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. Brown, of Christchurch, appear for appellant,aii d Mr. Stringer, K.C., and Mr. Myers for respondent. Mr. Skerrett contended that before respondent could succeed he must show that the moneys were transferred by appellant, as testator’s attorney, without his knowledge, or consent, v but the whole of the evidence was against this. The correspondence before tho Court showed plainly that it was Moore’s intention to tranfer as much during his life-time as he could. In 1900 appellant opened a banking account, and all moneys payable to testator were paid into his daughter’s account with liis concurrence. Such payments wore gifts, and not subiect to duty. The means adopted to escape duty were perfectly legal and unimpeacliablo. Later.— Continuing, Mr. Skerrett said tho course pursued by the testator and liis daughter was with the advice of counsel. Tho gift, although made for the purposo of evading duty, was complete and bona fide. The appellant exercised complete control over the moneys paid into her name, there being no reservation on her ±a On l the 3 other side, Mr Stringer contended there was not sufficient evidence of gift. Whore there was a gift without writing it must be completed by manual .delivery. In this case appellent received the money as attorney for lier father, and there was no manual delivery nor was there a deed. Further, appellant was trustee for her father under power of attorney, and that strengthened the presumption against a gu . Tho case is unnmsnocl.