COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3556, 9 May 1922, Page 47

COURT OF APPEAL

WELLINGTON, April 28. The Appeal Court judgment in the application by the New Zealand Law Society to strike F. J. Tipping off the roll of barristers and' solicitors was that he be suspended for two years and ordered to pay £ls 15s costs. The Appeal Court’s decision in the application by Mr F. W. Turner for re-admis-sion as a barrister and solicitor, having been struck off the roll on account of conviction for theft in 1914, was that it was not satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to be re-admitted. Applicant must, establish that he was fit to be trusted by the public, and this he had not done. The application was refused with costs (£l2 12s). May 1. The Court of Appeal gave judgment this morning in the case the King versus John Leonard, a case in which the husband was convicted under the provisions of the Mental Defectives Act for having intercourse with his wife, who was detained under the provisions of the Act. The jury found Leonard “guilty, but with strong recommendation to mercy, as we believe the act was committed through ignorance, and also the laxity of the hospital authorities in not warning prisoner.” The Court, with a majority of three to one, affirmed the conviction on the ground that the words of the Statute were plain; and the Court could not hold that Parliament did not mean what it said. _Mr Justice Stringer dissented, and considered that the words “every person” ir. the Act should not be read to include the husband. PAYMENT OF LAND TAX. WELLINGTON, May 2. The Court of Appeal heard argument this afternoon in the case of Henry Alexis Charles versus Edmund William Lysons and others, an* appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Reed at New Plymouth. The appellant purchased a farm in Taranaki from the respondents, and the agreement for the sale and purchase contained an agreement. that all rates, taxes', and other outgoings should be apportioned to July 1, 1920. The dispute arose as to whether the words “taxes and other outgoings” included “land tax.” The respondents contended that “land tax” was included, and claimed from the appellant the sum of £lO6 16s lOd, being the proportion of land tax alleged to be payable by the appellant. Mr Justice Reed gave judgment in favour of the respondents for the full amount claimed, and against this judgment the appeal was lodged. Mr M. Myers, for the respondents, raised the preliminary point as to whether the appeal was in time. Decision was reserved on this point. Mr A. Gray, K.C., in opening argument for the appellant, said that the case wai important because it involved an interpretation of a judicial decision that land tax was apportionable. He contended that the Land and Income Tax Act of 1916, section 162, prohibited any apportionment. The person who owned land on March 31, 1920, was liable, lie contended, for the whole land tax of that year, even if he settled on April 1, 1920, and he could not contract himself out of that liability. . Mr Myers, for the respondents, said that if Mr Gray s contention was correct a man might purchase land on April 1, 1919, and sell on March 30, 1920, and yet escape all land tax. Such a result was not equitable, and the court would not hold such to be law if it could help doing so. The agreement for the apportionment of taxes in the present case did not offend against section 162 of the Land and Income Tax Act. The apportionment of the land tax would not affect the incidence of the tax at all. mi /-i May 3. The Court of Appeal continued this morning its hearing of argument in the case of Charles v. Lysons and others. Mr M. _ Myers, for respondents, dealt further with the meaning of section 162 of the Land and Income Tax Act, 1916. Mr A. Gray, K. 0., in reply, said that if the judgment of Mr Justice Reed stood the result, might he chaos, as a property might change hands several times ir. a year, with the necessity for apportionment of land tax on each sate. In reply to a question by Mr Justice Stringer as to whether it was reasonable that the owner of land, say, for one dav should pay the land tax "for the whole year, and the owner for 364 days pay nothing Mr Gray replied that it was a matter for the Legislature. At the conclusion of Mr Gray’s reply the court reserved its decision.