IMPORTANT DECISION.

Southland Times, Issue 656, 12 April 1867, Page 3

IMPORTANT DECISION.

(EYom the " Wellington Independent.") , A case of groat importance to the mercantile community of New Zealand was tried before Mr Justice Johnson on Tuesday. The action was a friendly one, which had been arranged between the Banks and the G-overnment; to try the question as to whether certain Bills of Exchange and other mercantile documents' were liable to stamp duty • aiid it^ topi the form of an appeal by Mr Tate, Act-ing-manager of the Union Bank of Australia, against the decision of the Commissioner of Stamps, that certain documents were liable to stamp duty. The case for the appellants was ably conducted by Mr Brandon, while the interests of the Crown were confided to the ' care of Mr Prendergast, Attorney-Gteneral. Six points were propounded to his Honor for decision; but the three first, which were the most important, contained this question in common, whether a Bill of Exchange, which had its initiation beyond the boundaries of the colony before the first of January, 1867, the day on which the Stamp Act came into operation, but which had been dealt with in the colony after that date, was liable to pay the duty enforced by the schedule to the Act upon a Bill of Exchange? Mr Brandon argued that it was not liable to duty, chiefly on the grounds that such a bill was a complete document for all commercial purposes before the Act came into operation, and that the Legislature had not clearly expressed its intent to tax such documents in the Act. The Attorney- General, on the other hand, argued that the duty was imposed, not upon the bill itself, but upon the commercial transaction; and, therefore, any act of endorsation, transference, or payment of the bill performed within the colony after the Ist January, 1867, rendered the bill liable to stamp duty. Moreover, they were not only to look at the particular words of the Act, but also at its substance. His Honor decided that such bills were liable to pay duty ; and we think that however hard this decision may bear upon those persons who have accepted unstamped foreign bills since the Ist of January last, it is in strict accordance with the terms of the Act. Another , point has also been laid before the Court, as to whether Bills of Exchange drawn out of the colony, payable at or after sight in 2STew Zealand, but not accepted or indorsed or negociated either in or out of the colony, were liable to duty if paid in cash by the drawer, and endorsed by the payee gimply writing his name at the time of payment: but it could not be argued owing to a technical informality. A fourth point raised was whether Promissory Notes made and payable out of the colony were liable to duty on being endorsed or negociated in New Zealand ? The Commissioner of Stamps had decided that they were, but this decisionbeing clearly repugnant to the provisions of the Act, the Attorney-G-eneral admitted their non-liability. The last point was, whether Bankers' Deposit Receipts, for money deposited for a fixed period, and bearing interest and*not transferable, were liable to duty when issued ? His Honor ruled that they were not, on the ground that such receipts were not agreements, and came under the category of receipts for moneys to be accounted for, which are exempted from duty in the Schedule to the Act. His Honor, in delivering judgment, let fall some observations which would make it appear that he desired that his judgment should be appealed against; and although we have not heard that any further proceedings are likely to be taken in the matter, we fancy that the Banks may very probably be induced to try the question again in the Court of Appeal.