THE APPEAL COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2358, 4 May 1899, Page 19

THE APPEAL COURT.

] WELLINGTON, April 25. j Argument for the plaintiff company was concluded this afternoon in the case of the General Exploration Company (Limited) v. , Purser, and Sir Robert Stout was address- ■' insj the court on behalf of defendant when the court rose for the day. The main de1 fence put forward is that Pielsticker, as ! attorney for the plaintiff company, repre- ! 1 sented to defendant that in the interests J of the company and for flotation purposes .' it was necessary that the properties pur- ! chased by the company should have large j J face values, and appear lo be purchased • j by the company for large sums, and de- "■ fendant believed the large amounts refunded . ; by him lo Pielsticker and Dencker were re- j transmitted to the company, and the com- ! pany were aware that the amount retained i by defendant exceeded the values of the properties purchased. It is alleged, there- | fore, that there was no fraud against the ■ cxuipany. i April 26. Argument for defendant in the case of the General Exploration Company (Limited) v. Purser was continued this afternoon. Sir j R. Stout contended that certain- nonsuit j points raised by him at the trial should have .; been allowed, 'and if so no. new ..trial could :do 'ordered, because no injustice had" , been- done. " The principal points' are : — ! That there was no proof that the action ! had been authorised by the company, or • that the company was incorporated acI cording to the law of Germany, where it I was alleged it was formed. Sir R. Stout I concluded liis argument on the legal points involved this afternoon. Mr Brown then , addressed the :ourt at some length on the • facts, urgtng strongly that it was a pos- ' bible and probable hypothesis that defend- I | ant had honestly believed tbat no fraud I . whatever was being committed on the j ' company ; that this had been put j ! to the jury as. a possible hypothesis by \ the -learned judge at the trial, and that , the jury having found to that effect it was ■ impossible^ for the court tc disturb their ', verdict. Mr Bell having replied, the court "l reserved its decision. I i April 28. I ' Argument in the case of the Commis- i ' sioner of Taxes v. the Kauri Timber Com- j > pany was commenced in the Court of Ap- ' ! ppal this afternoon. - This is an action for j ; the recovery of land tax. An order was made in the Supreme Court, Auckland, for ; argument of questions of law before the ■ trial, and by another order these were re- '„ moved into the Court of Appeal. The case : involves the liability* of the defendant comj pany to pay land tax- on timber rights j possessed by it over a very large number of' 1 blocks of land, under a number of different 1 deeds. The .question involved in the case of each deed being whether, under the terms of the deed, the .company has an I interest in the land amounting to a lan.l tenement, hereditament, or chattel interest within the . meaning of the interpretation , clause in "The Land and Income Tax Act, 1891." The claim is for £1452 13s 7d. of which the defendant company has since the coaUDfincement of the action paid £826

6s' lid into court, leaving £626 fts 8d ii> dispute, being the tax on interest valued at £38,000. The case is being argued- before the Full Court. Mr Napier ia appearing for plaintiff, and Messrs Theo. Cooper and H: Campbell for the defendant cempany. Mr Napier had only partly opened the case when the court- rose. .Argument will be resumed on Monday