COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4806, 8 November 1902, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the following cases, which had been previously argued:— ASSETS COMPANY’S STAMP DUTY. In the case in which the Assets Company, Ltd., Glasgow, petitioned the Crown for a refund of £ISOO claimed to have boon paid as excessive stamp duty between the years 1891 and 1900, the following questions of law were involved :—(1) Whether the facts stated in the petition disclosed a cause of action cognisable under the Crown Suits Act, 1881 ? j (2) Whether, and to what extent, the petitioner’s claim was barred, by tho Statute of Limitations or by section 39 of the Crown Suits Act, 1881 ? Mr Justice Williams decided that the first question must be answered in tho affirmative, and the second in the negative. Tho case was subsequently removed into the Court of Appeal for argument. Tho majority of the Court decided in favour of the Assets Company, and costs were allowed on the highest scale as on a case from a distance. Leave to appeal was granted! DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT. This was the question tho Court was called upon to interpret in connection with tho reading of section 55 of Hie Land and Income Assessment Aqt 1900', in a case brought by the Commissioner of Taxes against tho Australian Mutual Provident Society, and removed from tho Supremo Court for argument. Plaintiff claimed that tho defendant company had failed to account in its-income-tax returns for tho past four years for interest on overdue premiums, or on the amounts of advances made by tho society from tho surrender value of policies the premiums upon which wero unpaid. It was alleged that such interest was assessable as being income or income from investments of the defendant society, and that the same should be included in tho society’s returns of income, and income-tax paid thereon. Under this heading tho sum of £3OO was claimed or such other amount as tho Court might find to be payable. Tho questions for tho Umrt wero:—(1) If a member whoso policy has lapsed procures it to bo reinstated, is tho fine imposed on qnd paid by him “income from investments” within the meaning of the Land and Income Assessment Act 1900? (2) Is the interest charged against tho policy moneys of members whose policies, having a surrender value, have been kept on foot out of such surrender value “income from investments” within the meaning of the said Act? (a) If tho member pays tho premiums and interest in his lifetime, and so restores his policy to the value it would have if the member had paid' premiums regularly? (b) If he leaves tho same unpaid and to bo deducted from tho policy-moneys on his death ?

The majority of the Court decided that the first question should be answered in the negative, and the second in the affirmative. Judgment was entered accordingly.