DEBTS OF THE CROWN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7928, 11 October 1911, Page 4

DEBTS OF THE CROWN

AN APPEAL DROPPED. “In an action between the Crown and a subject has the subject a right to sotoff one debt against another 'i This ouestion.. which was recently answered m the negative by Dr McArthur, S.M.. was yesterday placed before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) sitting m Eastern Extension, Australasian and China Telegraph Co., Ltd appealed against the decision of Dr. McArthur, S.M., given in their action with the Commissioner of Taxes. . _ At the magisterial hearing the Commissioner of Taxes sued the Telegraph Co. to recover the sum of .£74 3s lOd, alleged to be due on account of taxes unpaid C£67 9s) and interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent. (JJ6 14s lOd). The defendants counterclaimed for £67 9s, and alleged that on August 24th, 1904, they obtained judgment against the plaintiff for tho refund of certain income tax paid by them, together with costs. Those costs were fixed at .£lB5 2s 9d, and settled about September 20th, 1310. Defendants were 'entitled to interest on that amount at the rate of G per cent, from August, 1904, to September, 1906, making a sum of £C~ 9s. The defendants -had since received a bill for income tax of ,£134 10s 6d, and of this sum they paid £67 Is 6d, deducting the £67 9; earned at interest. The Sum so paid, together with the amount retained, mad. up the whole amount payable by th< defendant to tho plaintiff as interest Tho penal rate of 10 per cent., amounting' to £6 14s lOd, they contended nevej became duo. His Worship gave judgment for plain tiff, holding that, in an action betwee; Crown, and subject, the subject had 11 right to set-off, but must proceed by poii l Tlie appeal was made on the ground that the decision was erroneous in poinof law. Mr A. W. Blair appeared fotho appellant, and the Solicitor-General (Mr j" W. Salmoud) for the Crown; Mr Blair was proceeding . with his argument in tho case when tho Chief Justice pointed out that in the lower court tho case had been argued upon tho assumption that judgment had been given in 1004. whereas it had not been delivered until 1910. Interest would run,, if at all, from tho date of the judgment. The anneal was dropped, £4 4s costs bolus allowed tho Solicitor-General.