COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3618, 17 July 1923, Page 58

COURT OF APPEAL

SITTING IN WELLINGTON. WELLINGTON, July 11. The Court of Appeal heard argument this morning in the case of the Commissioner of Taxes v Todd, a Dunedin case. The facts were that about February. 1921, Todd, out of his regard towards the proposed transferees, signed transfers by way of gitt of 1000 shares of the nominal \alue of £I(XX) in Todd Bros. (Ltd.). The transfers were lodged for stamping on February 17, 1921, but at that date they had not been registered in the books of Todd Bros. (Ltd.), or delivered to the transferees. After some discussion with the Commissioner of Stamps the transfers were withdrawn, but on April 7, 1921, they were returned and duly stamped as if the shares were of tue value of ±>looo. Then on February 27, 1922, Todd made a further gift of £ICX)G to one ilyde. The Commissioner of Stamps claimed duty at the rate of 5 per cent, on me total value of both gifts, as lie contended that they had been made within the period of one year, and that the limit of the amount or the gift free of duty within the period of one year was £TiXX). in the Supreme Court the Chief Justice decided against the Commissioner. The Solicitor-General said the point for the consideration of the court was whether the transfer of the shares of February 16, 1921, was complete on that date or was not complete until April 17, 1921. He contended that as the transfers were not delivered to tile transferees until after April 7, 1921, the transfer was not complete until after that date. ane iron. J. MacGregor, for Todd, said that the case was most unfairly stated by the Commissioner of Stamps. There were several incorrect statements of the facts. Ho admitted, however, that he was bound by the lacts as stated on the question of law. He contended tnat as delivery of the transfer of shares to the transferee was not necessary in oruer to complete the transfer iu the present case the transferees had signed the transier, thus showing tliat they accepted the transiers. This gave the transferees a clear and equitable title oil February 16, 1921, and the two gifts of £IUOO each had not therefore been made within the period of one year. No stamp duty was therefore payable. The court reserved its decision.

The Court of Appeal also heard argument this afternoon in the case of Powley and another (appellants) against llis Majesty the King (responuent), an appeal from the judgment of tlie Chief Justice which was delivered at Wellington on June 7 last. Tiie appellants claimed against the Crown for a refund of Customs duty to the extent of £293 in respect of duty paid on 331 gallons of whisky on December 2, 1821. The Chief Justice in tha Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to a refund.

Before the Court of Appeal this afternoon Mr M. Myers, K.C., and with him Mr J. S. Sinclair, of Dunedin, appeared for appellants, and Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C., tiolicitor-General, for the Crown. Mr Myers contended that upon the proper construction of the Parliamentary resolutions passed on November 3, 1921, coupled with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1913, the appellants were entitled to a refund. The Solicitor-General said Hiat it was only by giving a forced construction to the word

“imported” the construction of the Parliamentary regulations asked for by Mr Myers could be maintained. He contended further that even assuming the correctness of the appellant’s construction of the word “imported,” they were not entitled to a refund. The court reserved its decision.