APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 61, 17 October 1907, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

Per Press Association. ' Wellington, Wednesday. In the Townend case in the Appeal Court, Mr. Stringer, continuing his argument, contended there was no satisfactory evidence that appellant had told her father she was paying all moneys into her account. The probabilities were she did not consult liini on every occasion. The onus was oil her to prove there was no undue influence, but the evidence was that she kept everyone but a nurse and the manager of Glenmark from seeing her father for some years before his death. Even if the money were validly given appellant, it was for the purpose of evading duty, and was therefore liable to duty under the Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act. He further argued that the arrangement between appellant and her father was, as it were, a conspiracy to evade payment. She paid all expenses of the house and Glcnmark station, although they belonged to her father, and she also paid land-tax on his land. If power of attorney authorised appellant to retain these moneys, then counsel claimed it was in itself a deed of gift.

In the Townscnrt probate duty case before the Appeal Court, affecting over £20,000 of duty, argument was continued for respondent by Mr. Myers. Mr. Skerrett, replied briefly, and the Court reserved judgment.