IMPORTANT DECISION.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 236, 16 September 1884, Page 2

IMPORTANT DECISION.

The case of Property Tax Commissioner v. F. Dufaur & Co. was heard yesterday. The Commissioner appeared in person to conduct his own case. His Worship stated in reply to the plaintiff, that he gave his former decision on the ground that the amount of the tax had been rendered by the time it fell due. The plaintiff submitted that the only place where a proper tender could be made would be to himself. It was no tender unless the defendant tendered the money in his hand because it was impossible for the postmaster to know what people had to pay. It was optional to pay either to himself (the Commissioner) at Wellington, or if it suited better, to pay the local Postmasters. It was impossible for the defendants to say they did not know the amount due by them because they were simply taxed on the return sent in by themselves, so they must have been aware of the amount. If a person was said to make a tender, that person must produce the exact amount due by him. The defendants could have telegraphed to know the amount they owed as they had a fortnight to do it in, from the Ist December to the 14th. Thousands of telegrams had been sent all over the colony that way. The Postmasters were not supposed to know the amount of taxes due by people, but if Mr. Shrimpton had been asked he could have telegraphed to know. The ton per cent, was no hardship, and it had been found to work exceedingly well, and through it they got in no less than £lOO,OOO last year, which would not have been if that per centage was not in existence. He quoted the 77th section of the Property Assessment Act Amendment, which, he stated, was framed specially to meet such cases, as that one then before them. He pointed out on a previous occasion the defendants got notice of their tax on the 3rd of March which was not paid until the 24th of April. He was bound not to disclose the amount of the taxes and the Postmasters were not supposed to know. He did not see that the defendants had taken any especial trouble in the matter, and it was a question of very large importance that the 10 per cent, should be upheld. He supposed he had appeared in Courts of law in 1500 cases of this sort and had never lost one.

The plaintiff was then put on his oath and stated briefly the process gone through in posting the various accounts of the taxpayers. There was no doubt a notice of the tax had been posted to the defendants, and in that notice it was mentioned that the amount must be paid by the first of December, and that the 10 per cent, penalty would be inflicted if not paid within 14 days afterwards. He could not swear positively that the notice was posted, and that was why he had tho Act amended.

The defendant (Capt. Chrisp), was called and deposed there were two members of the firm. He himself invariably got the letters from the post-office. Perhaps only once during a month, the boxes might be cleared by someone else, but he invariably did it himself. He could not swear that some one of his clerks or his other partner did not go to the box and get the notice of the tax which he stated had not been received by them.

Mr. Shrimpton deposed that the last witness offered to pay the amount of his tax if he (Mr. Shrimpton) would inform him how much it was. Witness could not tell him the amount, but advised him to send about £5, in which case the Commissioner would ref und the difference, or communicate with him if it was not sufficient. The money was not tendered on the Ist of December.

The plaintiff contended that no money had been tendered, because if no amount was offered it could not be a legal tender. The defendant submitted that his action was tantamount to a legal tender, and he could not see what evidence had been adduced which could reverse the previous decision of the Court. He quoted sections 90 and 91 of the Act, and said he would have tendered a larger amount, but the Postmaster peremptorily tQld him that he could not receive the tax, and it was utterly impossible for him to assess the amount they were to pay. He did not argue that not having received notice it should invalidate the assessment, he had paid and the Govarnment had received, but he did maintain that it was owing to the laches of the Government he did not receive that notice, and as it did not invalidate the assessment it should not subject him to be liable to the 10 per cent, penalty. His Worship said after hearing the plaintiff’s views on the subject he would be compelled to reverse his decision in favor of the plaintiff, without costs. The defendants gave notice of appeal.