COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 488, 22 April 1909, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. LEASE OF TUTIRA BLOCK. Further argument was heard by tho Court cf Appeal yestorday in connection with the case of To Roera Tareha (appellant) versus tho Ikaroa District Maori Land Board and Wm. Herbert and Anno Lindsay Guthrie-Smith (respondents), , Mr. Skerrett,' K.O. (with him Mr. Lewis), appeared for appellant, and Mr. M'Lean (with him Messrs. Myers and Ostler) for lesporidonts other than the board. » Tho facts wore,' briefly, that Mr. GuthrieSmith held 0500 acres,of the Tiitira Block (Ha'wkc's Bay), under loaso, from appellant and the other Native owners, for 21 yeais from September, 1891, and tho balance of the block, 10,990 acres, under a verbal agreement. The Native Lands Commission recommended that 13,420 acres bo leased to Mr. Guthrie-Smith for 30' years,' a,i a j early rental of £1335; that 5570 acres be leased to his sister. Miss Guthrie-Smith, for the same period, at an annual rental of £70; that tho Native owners in addition to the rent receive half tho royalty on tho flax grown on tho swamp lands at tho western end of rho ' lake; and that in order to enable tho Natives to start sheep-fanning'soo acres adjoining the Native reserve of 1000 acres be taken out of the lease. It had been decided by the Ikaroa Maori Land Board that the leases should date from April 1, 190 S. Ulaintiff claimed that, the board bo prohibited from executing the proposed leases. Mr. 'Justice Coopor, before whom tho matter was brought in -the Supremo Court, held, inter alia, that it was the duty of tho board to execute the leases, and.that tho term of both leases should commenco from tho date of the report of the commission, viz., August 6, 1907.' Appellant objected to the whole of the judgment, whilst respondents appealed from that portion of it which fixed the date of tho commencement of tho leases. The Court reserved its decision. BEQUEST TO THE SALVATION ARMY. SHOULD DUTY BE PAH)? Argument was then heard before Mr. Justice, Edwards (presiding) and Justices Cooper and Chapman, with respect to the case of in re Wilson (deceased) and the Commissioner of Stamp? (appellant) versus M'Donal and others (respondents). . Mr. l Hosking, K.C. '(of- Dunedin), appeared for the appellant, and-Mr. 'A. S. Adams (of Dnnodin) for the respondents. . Briefly the facts in this case were that tho late Mr. Samuel Wilson, of Dunedin, by his will directed that tho residue of his estate should be divided into four parts, of which two, amounting to over £16,000, should be paid to the treasurer of tho Salvation Army 'organisation, to bo applied in its social work in New Zealand. The , Commissioner of Stamps assessed duty on tho bequest' at £1800, but the trustees of the will appealed to the Supreme Court from the assessment,' on the ground'that the bequest by the combined effect 'of the Charitable Gift 3 Duties Exemption ■ 'Act, 1883, and the Charitable Gifts Act, 1901, was oxempT^from duty. Section 3 of tho earlier Act exempts from duty bequests to hospitals, orphanages, lunatic or benevolent asylums. Under Section 2 of the later Act it is provided that where by deed or will any property is voluntarily conveyed, devised, bequeathed,' or transferred to trustees in trust for the benefit of the publicj such conveyance, devise, bequest, or transfer shall bo exempt from ,> all" duties ' which but for this Act would, bo payal/lo -thereon. 'Mr. Justice Williams hold that tho Salvation Army's social work-in 'the Dominion was carried on for tho benefit of the public within the meaning' ,of tho section quoted, anithat-by the combined-effect'of tho two Acts .the .beqnest 'was exempt fromduty. From his decision an'appeal was now brought. ' It was stated by Mr.* Hosking that'' tho real object of the appeal was to ascertain which bequests wore exempt and which were not under the combined Acts. ] When the Court adjourned until this morn- ' ing 'argument had not concluded.