COURT OF APPEAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14976, 23 April 1909, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE SALVATION ARMY CASE. TPer Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 22. The Court of Appeal resumed the hearing of the caeo of the Commissioner of Stamps v. M’Dcnal and others. Mr Hosking stated that the real reason why the appeal had been brought was to got a binding declaration. which the Commissioner could follow ae to what bequests were exempt from duty and what were not. He 3tated that the social work earned on by the Salvation Army in New Zealand consisted of the conduct of inebriate hospitals, refuges for girls and maternity homes, boys and girls homes, shelters and prison gate homes. In Australia other, work was undertaken which was of no benefit- to the public, such as the conduct of labour bureaux, anti-suicide bureaux and inquiries tor missing friends. The bequest was not for the social work as carried on in New Zealand at present, but for all such, work as might be carried on m future. There was nothing to prevent the Salvation Army establishing branches of the three last institutions in New Zealand, but these, however worthy in themselves, were not for the benefit of the public generally. By the constitution of the Army the General in command was the supreme and autocratic head, and could spend the funds in any way he liked, so long as he shdweil vouchers for his expenditure. The true construction of the two statutes was that the Act of 1883 exemnted from duty the charitable bequests mentioned in that Act, while the Act of 1901 did not extend to that claee of charitable bequests, but referred to gifts for the public benefit, which were not in the I nature of charitable bequests. The history of the latter Act was that it was passed primarily to exempt from dutv the gift of the Cornwall Park to the people of Auckland by Sir John Logan Campbell. Moreover, a, gift to he exempt under the Act of 1901 must ho to constituted trustees. Hero, the bequest was to the treasurer of the Salvation Army, and was not, therefore, within the Act. Mr A. S. Adams, on behalf of the respondents, contended that the be- ' quest was for a definite object, the i social work of the Salvation Army in New Zealand ; that it was the gift of a capital sum without directions for investment, and therefore the whole sum might ho expended immediately; that it was a gift to a trustee within the meaning of the Act of 1901; that the social work upon which it coiild be expended was limited to social work which was being carried on in New Zealand at the date of the death of the testator, I which work was known to the testator 1 and was in his contemplation when he I made his will. Mr Adams contended ! that all the classes of social work now ' being carried on in New Zealand were i within exemption of the Acts of 1883 I and 1901, and that even If anti-suicida

bureauXj labour bureaux and missing friends inquiry offices should be established in New Zealand, they also would ho within tho exemption, all of them being for the public benefit. This bequest was within iho spirit of tho Act of 1883 and was also for the benefit of tho public within the meaning of the Act of 1901. Mr Adams contended that the Act. of 1901 extended the provisions of the Act of 1883 to gifts and bequests “ for the benefit of the public,” taking those words in their popular sense, and not merely to gifts by deed to tha objects mentioned in Section 2 of tho Act of 1883. Here there was both a trust and a trustee. The person to whom tho money was paid would he trustee in equity, and tho Court would enforce tho trust against him. Mr Hosking replied, and the Court reserved judgment until to-morrow.