THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11697, 1 October 1902, Page 4

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

SUPRKME COURT—IN BANCO.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Re the will of Samuel Henry Andrews, deceased, of Devon, England. This was a case in which th& executors of the will of thf above-mentioned deceased and the corporation of the mayor and councillors of Dunedin appealed against the decision Of the Commissioner of StampF making'duty payable in respect of the said estate, upon the grounds that it was excessive, and that no duty was p&yablo in respect t« either of the bequet-ta to the Corporation of Dunedin for the benefit of the Dunedin volunteers or the bequests for the advancement sad benefit of the town of Dunedin > inasmuch as they were exempted by the Act* affected. Messrs Chapman and O'Shea appeared for the appellants, and Mr Fraeer for the Commissioner. Mr Chapman, in opening his case, said that the principal question raised in the case waft whether the estate was exempt from duty under the Act of last session (the Charitable Gifts Act, 1901), which was passed to extend the operation of the Act of 1883 (the Charitable Gifts Exemption Act). The Commirsioner had held that the Act of 1901 did not affect this estate. The Act of 1901, said Mr Chapman, said in section 4: "This Act shall form part of and be read together with the Charitable Duties Exemption Act, 1883." That Act was expressly made retrospective to a date fixed by it. The widow of testator died on July 16, 1901. Testator had died m 1896. Learned counsel submitted that this was a very simple question, and that section 4 of the Act of 1901 could have had no other intention than to full effect to the language used; that this Act was part of the prior Act; and the Legislature must be deemed to have urcd that express language in order to pive full effect to it, seeing that it had already fixed ft date—vis.. Ist January, ISS^—from which charitable bequests were to be exempt. To give any other construction to this sociiwi would be to find away altogether from the language deliberately chosen by Parliament. Both Acts were very rhort, and were_ apparently effected with' deliberation. It nußht perhaps be assumed that the Act °l 19j?l had been passed in consequence of the discussion arising out of the DiHworth case.

Mr Fraser said the Act was wtwd in consequence of tho kuowlf-dirc of' the ~ortl,elV' °L ft (soclimenfc by a testator not cKad Mr Chapman said there miv ] w , e \ Vrn several reasons, but there wns ro d-mbt that J he Dillworth coin govemfd (h<> mnin question. After quoting nuthofivfe? in -.up. port of his contention, ho cv,inv.iited that, the only proper way of reading thr-sn Ants was to take fhem a« ono Act nnd rcsd (hem according to the language u?ed by tho Legislature, and that (bat affected the exemption retrospectively. Mr O'Shea, dealing with another pha«e of the cose, said the department had assessed the stamp duty wholly™ if (he money went absolutely to the "Corporation and the volunteers. The final bslane* of (h----estate was £4,608 14s 4d. Of this £l5O was left to the widow absolutely and on the ; balance the duty Was calculated at the rate of 6i per cent. Tho Stanin Office Charged an extra. 3 per cent, on account of the bequests to strangers in blood. If, in his case, the Stamp Apartment was to ret tho benefit of the strangers in blood, <he person who was related to the testator should get the benefit of the rxemptlon, an-.i should not bo mulcted with I he 3 per cent. Mr Fraiet, in replying, doalt first with the question of whether Or not the Act n: 1901 w&i a retrospective statute. He submitted that that portion of his learned friehd'fe argument, based on the wording of section 4 67 the Act of ISDI, had not really any weight He did not contend for a mo inent that this statute should not be read with the Act Of 1883; it would bo so rea<l If these words wore not there at all. It was a. common section in amending statutes, and was really an enuflciaUon of tho principles that governed the courts in interpreting statutes. Neither was there any force, hj« contended, in the argument that the Act of- 1883 was retrospective. There was a case Which dealt with the English Trustee Act There were three AttS described as a code, and the first wan retrospective.' Another Act was passed, and another, and it Was endeavored to make the third Act retrospective, but the Courts would hot have it He submitted that the Asfc of 1901 was not A declaratory Act. It was a distinct Act with a distinct title. , He submitted further that the Courts iflvariaby showe.i the very greatest reluctance in interfering with vested ijttterests. Is this case (hero was a dtbo Which, though it might le post poned till the Wife's death, was, nevertheless, a debt due. Supposing that bad been paid, his friend would say he had a right to recover it In Bach ease, he submitted, the Codttfc iW, to |pifc4hfl A-Bt &

iriii<iiC%'?,f* idol was mutfy m> Mr lenglk T t*i fe \ tended that too, kbck 3 M, ' charged in this case ' , T.\',' \,. Els Honor, k MlWfiifig MM 'titfß he hod no doubt WfaateVw ihat Wbt* Ufa* Act of 190 l same iuto'mtattott thV'«ftkd» tablo' btititicst* in this <&W betittfte liable to duty, the tfeteWlMfc tator* tho Act of 11901 Waft patted, tfbt&ilM *&*&* lute nested Hglii to thfe eKMmt «t titil duty, tt WW now cohtthded that Ute Act of 1M had rettolfcetoiVe Ope«i«ofi, and that the Vested tight tthioh the OrWftL had acquired had become ateoraWl* *tf&. Manifestly, to feuStalfi Kttfch tL ftnWntt6% it must &pt>e&r that the language <bf &* Act of 1901 was t shadow of a doubt. )Hii% looking il th* Act of 1901, neither the first, ttoSmt, few third clause gave any color Yfrhlfcfevfc* to the, notion that the Act If it was retrospective it mult be by . reason of the fourth clauftc, Which Said till* ' Act fehould form part of and be t&& tbgethcr with the AcVbf 18W. Whethe* clause 4 had been enacted of not* the Act I of 1901, being an amending Aet, Wtmld be read together with the Act of IM. -Hi" *ras contended, hoWevt*> &&t the McpWfcn enactment carried the matter fortoett & had therefore to look at the wotdi fit t*c- ' tion 4; there was nothing r&raftpestfr* ft* all. It said the Act shall form fi*ft « and be read together with. flbifc, titim* meant plainly, that in the !W*fls Jto tt»« Acts were to be read together. What h* wm asked to do Was to read clais* 4 tt IT it were wooded t " ¥hJis Abfe ihill be re&4 as if it had. originall* torMed part «f the ■ Act of 1883." a these word* we*e tfle**, then properly the Act shbtthl be fctroilpl*. tive. But ho such Words bM teenlhserted, and the language of ftectiob 4 pointed not to the past, tout to the ftffcutfc. He thought there was no doubt Whatever that the Act was not fetrospeftttVeV As to the other point—whether the interest of niece could be taken into «oih sideration in estimating hour much 61 th* flstate was liable to dutv a* to strangers in question involved ISome Investigation nf lie statutes and he wa* toot prepared to decide it at the moment. The Court theft adjourned for mirth. i When tho Court returned at B.IS jMh. the case of Hiohias King fapwefiant) v, X Ward (respondent) WAS callefl on. Mr Fraser, who appeared for the OroWH Solicitor at Oamaru, paid this was an appeal from a cane decided by the stipendiary magistrate at Oamaru, in which one Wfcra vras charged with having entered the Gl'encoe Hotel, he bebg a prohibited pels i-oh. He had gone to a place dutstde tb« district ih Which the prdhibittott ordfer Wttß .granted, and the question was whether a prohibition order Was festrlctfed te tho district in which It was iksued, fflhft A«b of 1893 said any district) in whidi fe bition order was in force. Ilie Act tt? 1895 said "On any licensed premißes dttting the currencv of such Drder.** Ste tontnnded that the tiegislature deliberately widened the liability of the prohibited person by omitting any restriction hjy reference to district. This contention, be said, was perfectly reasonable, because tlw intention of tho Legislature had been pefrsistently to prohibit a person of this sort from obtaining liquor of any kind, evil was just as great feo far as thfc man ■was concerned if be went to licensed premises in or out of Mb district. There Wai no injustice to the publican, for it wfca only with knowledge that he became liable, and that knowledge would have to b« proved by the prosecution. It be \oA knowledge, theft it was right that he should be punished, because be allowed to prohibited person to drink on his »!*• miscs. Summarising briefly, he said, there was the fact that in 1891 the locality *** only referred to incidentally; in lfe3 it was emphasised; and ih 1895 it ww» wholly omitted, and, he could only argue, dell" bDratcly omitted, with the Intention of preventing the evil against which the Legislature t wcrc passing a statute. fie took it that the Legislature had beeoa striving to prevent intemperate men fra» obtaining liquor in any shape or form. fLeft Bitting.]