A SUBSTANTIAL FINE.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 99, 24 October 1904, Page 5

A SUBSTANTIAL FINE.

IMPORTANT LAW COURT DECISION. The Electric Construction Company, Ltd., and Newton H. White, its representative in New Zealand, were recently charged at the instance of the Stamp Department with having carried on the business or operations of the company, from January to September, 1904, without a license. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., heard the case, and reserved his judgment until this morning, when he fined each defendant £160. On • one of the defendants paying the fine and costs, his Worship said he was prepared to recommend the remission of the penalty on the other. Mr. Quick, who represented the company and its manag*;r 2 g^ve notice of appeal. The information was laid under sections 100 and 103 of the Stamp Act 1883* The first states: "Every incorporated company carrying on business in the colony, whether incorporated in New Zealand or elsewhere, shall procure from the Commissioner every year a license " The other section states : "If "a company carries on business without a license or neglects to renew a license, within one month of its expiry, it and every director, secretary, or other person acting in the management, snail' be liable to a penalty of £20 for every month during which the company remains unlicensed. His Worship said tlie defendant company was incorporate^ in England. In April, 1903, it entered into contracts with the Wellington City Council for the supply and erection of plant and materials for the tramway power-station. The installation work was carried out, and was now being maintained by the company during the required period of six months. The defendant White was the resident engineer of the company, and had supervised the operations for it under the contracts, and was at present conducting the maintenance operations. Counsel for the defence maintained that the defendants were not required to procure a license, innsmuch as the company did not carry on business in New Zealand. He submitted that to establish the carrying on of business, there must be habituality, that the mere taking of a contract and doing what was necessary to complete the contract was not carrying on business. He further submitted that the business was only carried on where the company was incorporated, and that the company was not represented bj^he defendant, White, who did not hokr'K power of attorney, but was only an expert servant. Defendant White paid wages and small amounts for necessaries. In his Worship's opinion the fact of White not holding a power of attorney did not affect the question of "carrying-son business or not," as the cases cited showed that firms had been held to be carrying on business although- those who acted for tbem held no power of attorney, and sent orders direct to headquarters. Neither did he think that a company only carried on business where it was incorporated. Concerning the question of the necessity of habituality, if once admitted, his Worship thought that' there would arise great difficulty as to the number of times ttiat constituted habit. However, to his Worship it did hot appear a necessary element in the term "carrying on business." "Carrying" here only denoted incompleteness, not habitually. The cases cited supported the contention of the Stamp Department that the defendants were required to procure a license, inasmuch as the company was,, one carrying on business in the colony; A fine of £160 on each defendant, as already stated, was imposed. These amounts were assessed at the rate of £20 a month during the time that the company remained unlicensed.

Mr. Myers appeared for the Stamp Department. NIL DESPERANDUM. Possibly this may catch the eye of gome poor unfortunate who has tried all sorts of so-called remedies for colds, bad chests, and dangerous fits of coughing. Don't forget, Tonking'a Linseed Emulsion is your remedy. A preparation that will find its way through all quarters of the globe solely on its merits. Sold everywhere, Is 6d, 2s od, and 4b 6d per boMe.— Advt.