SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10965, 29 July 1921, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

STAMP DUTY APPEAL. TAUMARUN’UI TIMBER LANDS. In the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour the acting-Chief Justice, Mr Justice Sim, gave consideration to an appeal against the assessment of the Commissioner of Stomps, in respect of a deed, .under which Richard Charles Fullerton Smith and Ralph Townsend Fullerton Smith, in consideration of a sum of £20,000, granted John Alfred Endeam, the appellant, rights over timber lands at Taumarunui. Mr T. A. Neave appeared for the appellant, and the Solicitor-General (Mr W C. MacGregor) for the Commissioner of Stamps. Counsel for appellant detailed the circumstances of ’ the sale. The grantors conferred oil Endean, in consideration of £SOOO deposit and three annual instelmets of £SOOO each, the right to fell, carry away and remove all green timber. The deed was assessed as upon “conveyance Of sale,’’ and the Commissioner claimed stamp duty in the sum of £2OO, as, upon a consideration of £20,000; the appellant contended that it should be assessed as a deed, “not otherwise charged,” and duty paid in the sum of 12a 6d. The deed did not confer any estate in the Tamd; it was .a- mere license to enter. It did not give exclusive possession to the grantee, and therefore fell short of the requirements necessary in creating a lease. It dad not purport to be a sale of any part of the grantor's interest in the land. Counsel submitted that it was a contract for the sale of goods, that is, standing timber. The document did not come within the schedule of the Stamp Act, 1908, or the Finance Act, 1915.

His Honour: Does it not give you exclusive possession to Ti Tree Flat. Counsel: Yes, subject to it being fenced, and to sawdust, not being allowed to go into the river. Counsel Said this was a difficulty to him, but was not fatal. He quoted authorities in support of his contention that such provision did not constitute a lease.

The Sol icitor-Genoral argued in support of the Commissioners contention that the document was a conveyance of ealc, within the meaning of section 81' of the Stamp Act, which embraced a wide area in coveting the transfer or vesting of any property, real ot personal. The present deed gave an easement for profit, and. was a contract for the exclusive possession of tli© land. Undor it a legal ostatory interest was vested in the grantee. Judgment was reserved.