INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2928, 27 April 1910, Page 89

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.

THE CHRISTCHURCH CASES. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. WELLINGTON, April 20. In Bowron Bros. v. Bishop, S.M., after stating the facts and contentions of counsel that the information was not laid within three years of the offence because no application, was made, the Chief Justice held that there were no decisions directly bearing on the point in England. In his opinion the information was laid when it was sworn before the justice; therefore, it was laid in time, and the motion for prohibition must be dismissed. Judges Williams, Edwards, and Chapman agreed. The motion was dismissed, with £lB 18s costs im the Supreme Court, and costs on the highest scale in the Appeal Coui’t. Mr Skerrett applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The Solicitorgeneral opposed the application on the ground that there was no appeal as of right, the matter being not a civil but a criminal one. After argument on this question, the court reserved decision. April 22. In the Court of Appeal to-day before Sir R. Stout (Chief Justice) and Justices Williams, Edwards, and Chapman, the application of the plaintiffs in the case Bowron ißros. v. Bishop for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the Court of Appeal was further argued. The Solicitor-general’ (Mr Salmond), opposed the application upon the ground that it was not really a civil, but a criminal matter, in which no appeal lay of right, and in which the court should, following the practice of the Privy Council itself, not in its discretion give leave to appeal, as there were no special circumstances. The point was the merest technicality, and did not raise any question of public importance. Mr Skerrett, K.C., and Mr Ostler, on behalf of the plaintiffs, contended that this was a purely civil matter. Plaintiffs, therefore, had the right to appeal. Alternatively, if there was no right, the court ought, in the exercise of its discretion, to give leave. A substantial point had been raised, and if it were held valid, the whole proceedings taken against the plaintiffs were entirely without jurisdiction and illegal. The court gave judgment refusing leave to appeal, but stating that the plaintiffs could apply direct to the Privy Council for such leave.