THE DUTY ON LINOTYPES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVIII, Issue 11368, 8 September 1897, Page 6

THE DUTY ON LINOTYPES.

[Per Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Sept. 7. A case involving- tho interpretation of certain paragraphs in tho Customs tariff regarding tho duty to be charged on linotypes will be heard at the Supreme Court next Monday. The parties to tho suit are Henry Brett, plaintiff, and. the Collector of Customs, defendant. In the statement of claim the plaintiff states that in July he imported live linotype machines of the ad valorem value of ,£35-16 7s Id, and that the Collector demanded duty at the rate of 20" per cent, on the ground that the machines came under tho definition in the Customs tariff of “machinery not otherwise enumerated, 20 per cent ad valorem.” Plaintiff claims that the machines come under the definition in tho tariff of “ printing type and materials not otherwise enumerated, free,” or, alternatively, that if linotype machines were not “ printing type and materials not otherwise enumerated,” then that they could not be liable to a greater duty than 5 per cent 'ad valorem under' the definition in the tariff of “ printing machines and presses 5 per cent ad valorem.” The sum of <6709 4s has been deposited by the plaintiff as duty, and he claims either for a refund of the whole amount, together with interest at tho rate of S per cent, or if the Court finds that the duty charged and deposited was not the proper duty, but that a less duty was payable, the difference between the amount deposited and the duty found to be due should bo returned. In the statement of defence the defendant denies that the machines come under the clauses quoted, and contends that ho was right in demanding duty on tho machines at the rate of 20 per cent, on the ground that the machines came under the heading and meaning of names of “ articles described as machinery nob otherwise enumerated, 20 per cent ad valorem lt is understood that a large number of witnesses have been subpoenaed. The Hon J. A. Tole (Crown Prosecutor) appears on behalf of the Customs Department and Mr Theo. Cooper appears on behalf of the plaintiff.