STAMP DUTY FEES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 27 May 1925, Page 9

STAMP DUTY FEES

K.C. FINED FOR EVASION

MAGISTRATE'S RESERVED

JUDGMENT

SECURITY LODGED FOR APPEAL.

(BI TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

CHRISTCHURCH, 26th May

Giving reserved judgment in the Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr. Wyvcrn Wilson, S.M., upheld a cjiarge of breach of the Stamp Duty Act against Frederick Wilding, K.C., and fined defendant £25. Notice of appeal was immediately given, security being fixed at £25.

The charge against Wilding was "that on 13th August, 1923, at Christchurch, being concerned in or about the preparation of a memorandum of transfer dated 13th August, 1923, with intent to defraud His Majesty, he did omit wilfully and truly, to set forth all tho facts and circumstances affecting the amount ot the ad valorem duty with which such instrument was chargeable." At the hearing Mr. P. S. K. Macassey (Wellington) appeared ior the Crown, and Mr. M. -Myers, X..C. (Wellington) for Wilding. This afternoon. Mr. M. J. Gresson took judgment for defendant. ■

llie Magistrate said tho instrument in respect of which the defendant was i.iiarged was a Iransier of land from jjuwron Bros, to one Campbell. In 1917 tiie land was sold to one Stevens, who entered into three agreements. In Iylß an agreement was prepared by 'Wilding and Acland, and this was never stamped. In 1921 Stevens entered into negotiations with Arming Bros, for tho sale or exchange of the property, and tiie Armings went into possession. For t-vo'and a-half years Aiming Bros, wero Irving to get possession of* Clifton rails, and the negotiations were carried on Uirough Wilding and Acland. Those negotiations wero noc successful. In ldi!3 the brothers agreed to another exchange, the agreement being drawn up by a land agent and then by DougaJl. This was sent to Uranger, managing clerk for Wilding and Acland. Granger prepared mortgages. The matter was to be completed in August, 1923, and Grangeri said that ho was worried as to the negotiations, and consulted "Wilding. The defendant said with regard to interviews with Granger that it was difficult to separate what was said at different interviews. He appeared to have told Granger that tho deal could be put through without citing Stevens or tho Armings. At the interview for the completion of the deal it appeared abundantly clear that the Armings declined to sign because it would have involved them in double stamp duty. They had felt strongly about the matter, because they had been trying to get. Clifton Falls for a long time. The suggestion was made by Uranger that the transaction could be put through direct from JSowron Bros. He made it quite clear later, that the Arming Bros, were concerned. Defendant had said that he directed the transfer to Campbell and intended to cut out tb,e intermediate purchasers entirely and leave them to pursue any course they might think fit. The Hon. G. J. Smith, of Bowron Bros., was assured by the defendant that this course was a safe one, and a transfer was drawn up. The only difficulty that arose in connection with the transfer going through was the refusal of the Armings to pay penal duty. It was clear that this was not made knowa until later. He was satisfied that the transfer direct was solely for the purpose, of evading payment of heavy penal duty. There was nothing in the evidence which led him to suppose that Bowrons wished to deprive the Armings of any interest in the property. Qn tho f;ice of the deeds it appeared that the Armings had been deprived of £1800, niifl required to take other burdens. It

i:;j|ic;ired, however, that Bowrons held tiicoc. burdens for the Armings. It was .-•'imvji that the land had been sold from liiwrons to Stevens by sale from Stevens to tin: Armings—the defendant admitted (liitt ho knew that this was in the natiii'i? o! a sale —and from the Armings t-.i Campbell. The Magistrate disagreed ■witU tlie contention of Mr. Myers that defendant was not concerned with < the preparation of the transfer; he was tho femor partner of the firm and directed his clerk how the transfer should bo prepared,

"After giving the matter grave consideration," tho Magistrate " concluded,

"f find myself unable to accept the statement of Wilding as to the state of his own mind, in the matter. I am of opinion that it was at bis instance that the transfer was put through direct with tlio sole object oE avoiding the payment of heavy penal duty. I do .not think the Armings were deprived of thair interest in the property in it's transfer, and therefore tho transfer could not he direct. 1 think defendant must be convicted. He has rendered himself liable to a fine, and also, being convicted, he is liable to payment of heavy penal stamp duty. I take that fact into consideration in fixing the amount of the fine. I tako into consideration also the fact that defendant has been in practice for many years, and in that time ho has risen, to an eminent place in his profession, but that eminence must carry with it corresponding responsibility. The- heaviest penalty, so far as defendant is concerned, is tho conviction itself. He will be fined £25 and ordered to pay costs."