RAM AND EWE FAIR.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18634, 8 March 1926, Page 10

RAM AND EWE FAIR.

SATISFACTORY ENTRIES. For the Canterbury A. and P. Association's annual ram and ewe fair, to be held on the Addington Showgrounds on the 18th and 19th inst., the entries received are very satisfactory. The rams entered this year total 5345, compared with 3911 last year—an increase of 143-1. This year's totaJ entry, though numerically large, is not a record, as the entry in 1922 totalled 5473. The entry of ewes this year is small, and is 100, as compared with 469 last year, a decrease of 309. The following table gives the entry of each breed, with last year's entry for comparison purposes : 1026. 1325. i Flock. Stud. Flock..Stud, j English Leicester Hots' 51 1:>54 63 Border Leicester T9l 20 ."52 25 Coinedalf! .. 1327 8L 1051 63 Slun?liire .. 3<S It 136 7 S.-.u!h-lowns .. 40!) 40 133 26 •Mfrioos .. 244- 0 252 3 Hallbrcd ..3:8 0 351 6 Bve!and .. 30 0 57 0 Komncv Harsh .. 175 •> 73 4 Lincoln . ... 15 f> 5 O SurT:!!< .. 16 0 .5.0 Totals .. 5123 216 3714 197 The entry of ewes compares as follows : 1926. 1925. English Leicester .. 0 293 Border Leicester ..15 O Corrieda:e .. .. 5 46 Eomrey Marsh .. 70 HO Suffolk '.. ' .. 10 - Merino .. .. 0 20 Southdowns .. .. 0 80 Totais .. .. 100 4G9 INCOME-TAX. EMPLOYERS' POSITION. N.Z, SHIPPING COMPANY'S TEST " " .CASE. Obom oub ows coaßßßPOinwirr.) LONDON", January 26. An interesting 1 case regarding income-tax was brought before the House of Lords by an employee of the New Zealand Shipping Company. This was an appeal, the result of which will serve as 'a guide not only to {he company in question, but to-all companies who are in the habit of paying salaries free of income-tax. The question arising on the appeal was whether, when a company paid an employee holding an office chargeable under Schedule F, of the Income-Tax Act, 1918, salary free of income-tax, but without any request from or arrangement with the employee, the amount of the profits for income-tax purposes was the sunt paid to the employee, or that sum plug the amount paid in respect of in-come-tax thereon by the company to the revenue authorities. The facts found by the case were these:—The.appellant was throughout the year of'assessment in the employ as their accountant of the New Zealand Shipping Company. The assessment appealed against included, in addition to the appellant's salary of £SOO, a, further, sum of £BO 5s arising in the following way:—lt had been the custom of the company since 1912 to pay every year the income-tax in respect of the salaries of all its employees, including the appellant, and for the year of assessment the amount so paid was included in the working accounts of the company under the heading "Income-tax, Staff,"-and had been allowed as a trade, expense, and deducted in arriving, at. the profits of the company for the yea'iiy of assessment. The sum of £BO 5s was''the 'sum so paid by the company in respect of the salary of the The I company entered into no agreement, either | verbally or in writing, with the. appellant as to the payment of income-tax in respect of •his v . salary, but the company had, in fact, paid and borne the income-tax in respect of the appellant's salary since 1912. Lord Chancellor's Judgment. The Lord Chancellor said that at first sight the appeal seemed to involve a question of mere technicality and of trifling importance, and he was surprised that the appellant should not have been content with the decision of the Court of Appeal; but their Lordships were now informed' that this was a test case.' After stating the facts, his Lordship ..said that the tax was chargeable under Schedule E in respect of an office or employment, and by the first 1 rule'of that schedule it was charged in respect of all salaries, fees, wages, perquisites, or profits whatsoever - accruing from the offices and employments mentioned in the schedule. Then by the fourth role the perquisites to be assessed under the Act were to be deemed to be such profits, of offices and employments as arose from fees or other emoluments. The question,. therefore, was .whether this £BO 5s came within the description of perquisites or emoluments in that schedule. If it came within that description it was plain that it was rightly added to the assessment. ' That appeared from North British Railway Company v. Scott (39 "The Times" ' L.R., 66; (1923) A.C., 37). But was it a profit or perquisite! That the payment was voluntary made no difference. That appeared from Blakiston v. Cooper (25 "The Times" L.R., 164; (1909) A.0., 104), where it was held that Easter offerings were chargeable to ' incometax. But it was said that this sum was not •tin emolument because it was not paid to the appellant or at his request, though it was, in fact, paid regularly during a series ,of years. He did not agree. There was that continuity of payment to which reference was made in Blakiston's case.. The effect of this payment was to relieve appellant from his liability to pay incometax. He indeed, receive cash in hand, but, he received money's worth year after yeari That being So, he (Lord Chancellor) could not resist the conclusion that this payment was in effect part of the appellant's profit or emolument as an officer of the company in respect of which he had been properly assessed. He therefore thought that the appeal failed, and he moved their Lordships accordingly. The other noble and learned Lords concurred. SMITHFIELD MARKET. The New Zealand Meat Producers' Board has received the following cable from its 'Lor Son Office, dated. March Ith, 1926, adrising Smithfield delivered prices at that Hate as follows (prices for the two previous weeks are also shown):

Lamb—There is a better tone prevailing on market. . Mutton market is slow, owing to low prices Argentine chilled beef.

BLACKWATER MINES. (raess association tkleqsah.) REEFTON, March 6. Blackwater Mines, Ltd., returns:—February: Crushed 3109 tons, value gold £5852, working expenses £4395, capital expenditure £493, development £244. The roasting furnace treated 51 tons, yielding gold value £403. The working expenses were £139, and the profit over £984.

(Per lb) . . 5-3,26. 26-2-26.19--2-26. d. tl. d. N.Z. Wethers and MaidensCanterbury quality, selected brands— 56-und()r •• 6i 64 6J 57-64 6i 6J fi 65-72 C 6 61 Other brands— 56-under .. Gi <U fA 57-64 6 6 f'i 65-72 - -v . 52 sj 6 N.Z.' Ewes— 64-under .. 41 •ti N.Z. Lamb— Canterbury quality (old season's — •ioi 36-under .. •. 10 10 37-42 .. .. 8J SJ ' 9 43-50 .. 7 7 7i Seconds -i 7J 71 Selected brands (new season's) — 10J 36-under .. log !0jj 37-12 1C1 10J 10? Other brands, 1st Quality (new season's) — ioi 42-under .. 91 10J X.Z. BeefOx lores '■ 3i 3 "X Ox hinds i 4 4i Argentine Chilled Beef — Ox fores 2 l 2i 32 Ox hinds 5i 5 Sj