COURT OF APPEAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14975, 22 April 1909, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 21. The Court of Appeal Bench, consisting of Justices Edwards, Cooper and Chapman, is now hearing the case of in re Wilson (deceased) Commissioner of Stamps v. M’Donald and others. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Williams, delivered in Dunedin on April 28, 1908, upon an appeal from an assessment of death duty under the Deceased Persons Estates Duties Acts. The late Samuel Wilson, of Dunedin, by his will directed that tho residue of his estate should be divided into four parts, and two such parts (amounting to about £16,000) should be paid to the treasurer of the Salvation Army organisation to bo applied in. tho social work of the Army in Now Zealand. The Commissioner of Stampg assessed duty on this bequest, and the trustees of the will appealed to the Supreme Court on tho ground that the bequest by the combined effect of tho Charitable Gifts Duties Exemption Act, 1883, and Charitable Gifts Act, 1901, was exempt from duty. Section 3 of the earlier Act exempts from duty bequests to hospitals and orphan, lunatic or benevolent. asylums. Section 2of the later Act 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 public such conveyance, devise, bequest or transfer shall be exempt from all duties which, but for this Act, would be payable thereon.” Mr Justice Williams upheld the appeal, holding that the Salvation Army’s social work in New Zealand was carried on for the benefit of the public within the meaning of the section above quoted, and that, by the combined effect of the two Acts the bequest was exempt from duty. The Commissioner of Stamps appealed from this decision. Mr Hosking, K.C., appeared for the appellant, and Mr A. S. Adams for the respondents. Mr Hosking contended that the Salvation Army was not a charitatble institution within the moaning of tho Act of 1883, and although there was no doubt of the excellence of its work, it did not exist for the public benefit within the meaning of the Act of 1901. Mr Hosking had not concluded argument when tho Court adjourned.