SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 74, 29 March 1899, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

THIS DAY.

SITTING IN BANCO

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.)

lie the Lunatics Act, 1882 and Thos. McDonald (a lunatic)} Motion to dis-charg-e vesting1 order. Mr Cooper appeared in support, Mr Tunks to oppose. Adjourned by consent till after Court of Appeal.

John McGowan, the Commissioner of Taxes, v. the Kauri Timber Company. This was an action for the recovery of the annual sum of £1452 13s 7d, land tax on kauri timber lands the property of the defendants. Mr W. J. Napier appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendant company. Mr Napier now moved that the case be moved into the Court of Appeal for argument on questions of law, and stated that the question ill dispute was one of considerable magnitude and involved an annuial payment by the Kauri Timber Company i of the sum sued for. The case would probably go to the Privy Council. The fundamental point was—though there was a different point on every one of some thirty deeds—was growing kauri timber 'land' within the meaning of the Land Tax Acts? His Honor remarked that a different judgment would probably have to be given by the Court of Appeal on each deed. Mr Napier said that was so. The deeds appeared to have been artfully drawn to avoid taxation. Mr Cooper said he would consent to the order, and probably admit about half of the claim before the argument in the Court of Appeal. His Honor then granted the order as prayed, costs to be reserved. Ec the Justices of the Peace Act, ISB2, and of a conviction against George HaUiday, of Whakapara, dated 25th January, Motion that the conviction be quashed. Mr Napier appeared in support. Ordered to stand over until after the Court of Appeal. Percival Barker, sheep farmer, v. Judges and Assessors of Native Land Court and Wm. Henry Tucker, wiremu Pere and Peka Kerekere Mr Cooper appeared to oppose. Mr De Latour, of Gisborne, appeared in support This motion was before the Court last week. His Honor now delivered judgment. He held., that, the ri°-ht of the Supreme Court^tp sn*ant a° mandamus to the Native Lands Court had not been taken away by section 38 of the Act of 1896, and that although the Privy Council had not ordered a mandamus to issue they had left it open to the Supreme Courtto do so. He therefore thought that he had power to order the mandamus to issue. Order made for £10 10s costs. '