Court of Appeal

Southland Times, Issue 17078, 29 October 1902, Page 2

Court of Appeal

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 28. The case of the Assets Company, Ltd,, v, the King is being argued in the Court of Appeal. The Assets Company was originally registered in .Scotland, with a capital of £590,000, but lias been carrying on business in New 'Zealand for a number of years. For some years it was assumed that it was not liable to pay -the annual license fee under the Stamps Act. Afterwards, however, the Stamp Office raised the question, and it was decided, first by the ..Commissioner of Stamps, and afterwards by the Supreme Court, on appeal, that the Company was bound to takeout an annual license. The company thereupon paid up arrears al the rate of £2OO a year uptn n. capital of £500,000 and continued to pay at -this rate for a number of years'. Afterwards the officials of the Company in the colony were not aware that the capital of the company had in 1890 been reduced to £lOO,OOO, and that in consequence the amount payable by the Company as from that date was £6O a year, instead of £2OO. The mistake was not. discovered until 1900, and from then up to and inclusive of the year 1900 the sum of £l5O was annually overpaid by the Company—£lsoo in all. 'This amount tlie Company now seeks to recover from the Crown by petition under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. The case came before Mr Justice Williams, and his Boiler held that the Company was entitled to recover. The Crown having appealed from this decision, it was agreed, with a view to bringing certain additional facts before the Court of Appeal' to state a special case. The question now before the Court is whether, upon the facts as now stated, the Company is entitled to recover. ■ The main question involved is whether the petition was filed within 12 uicnths from the date when the claim or demand arose, within the (meaning of sec. 39 of tlie Crown Suits Act, 1881. The petition was not filed within-12 months from tlie date of the discovery of the mistake by the Company, but was filed within 12 months from the date of the demand of refund made upon tlie Crown by the Company. The question therefore is whether the claim arose at the date of discovery or at the date of demand. Mr Hosking is appearing for the Company, and Mr Bell for the Crown, <the case being heard by the Chief Justice, and Justices Denniston, Coiiolly, mid Edwards.