Notes and Comments.

Thames Star, Volume XXX, Issue 9027, 26 March 1898, Page 2

Notes and Comments.

—♦ — Before the Longton (Staffs) Benoh recently, William Slinn, a waterman, was summoned by his wife, "who had not lived "with him for nearly twenty years, for maintenance. In November, 1879, it was stated he was con- i victed and sentenced to two months for an I aggravated assault upon her. Mrs Slinn ! stated that she had not lived with her husband, because she was afraid to do so ; but as she could no longer work she was un- ' i able to kepp herself. For the defence it was submitted that the summons should have teen taken out within six months of the ' offence, although it was admitted that that I oould not have been done, inasmuch as the . Act (1895) was not then in existence. Thia objeotion was over-ru ed, and an order made. Notice of appeal was given.

With what mixed feolings must a man regard his epistolary effusions, after being mulcted in damages for breach of promise of marriage! At Manchester Assizes, Sustnah Berry, a milliner, of Blackburn, was awarded £100 damages for breach of promise by Frederick Dunn, manager of tea stores at Barnsley. Afterpreparationsh»d been made for the marriage the defendant confessed to being engagtd to another young lady at Barrow. In a letter to the plaintiff, dut d September 4th, defendant wrote :—" My happiness is gone for ever if I don't get you. darling. My love for you is like a large consuming five. (Laughter). It will last as long as there is life left in me. After that time I pray God my happiness will come. When I went to see her on Wednesday my heart was broken. I was distracted. I wished to die as I was in that train, and then when I saw her and knew that I had been the. cause of her suffering I relented. I renewed ray promise to her. It helped her i-ain. I wns fully rewarded for going when I saw her delight a* I entered the room, Ido not regret that I went. I never shall. It wis tt.e right thing to do. 1 know it. My feelings told me it was right." A later passage ran : " i should not have renewed my promise to

is Blundell if you had sent me in the manner you ought to have do c, and wh'ch you would have done had it not b< en for others. I wi 1 see you at the bottom of Market-hill to-day (Sunday) at 2.45 if fine I shall always love you, pet, and pray God to iijake you happy." i

Moat people are probably now aware that in 1896 an Acb was passed which provided for a valuation being made by a Government Dtjparment of all the landed property in tba eoluny, the valu tion roll thus formed to be the basis of taxation under the Laud a,- d Incomes taxes, and for other purposes whioh it is not necessary to enumerate here. Complaints have been made in thisparticultir dietriet that for the purposes of this roll the amounts at which properties have been appraised have been excessive, and property owners in a number of cases appear to be somawhat alarmed at the possibilities of the taxation they may have to endure under this new assessment. These owners for the most part appear to be among those who do not quite understand the manner in whioh the ultimate values for taxation purposes are arrived at, and particularly in relation to the exceptions. Lot us JJendeavor Co explain

The Land Tax is levied on the actual value | ] of the land, but the value of all improvements i is exempted. When the value of the land, ■ less improvement! and mortgages, does not exceed £15000 in value, a deduction of £500 is made, and the tax is levied upon the value as so reduced. For instanoe, if a property, less the improvements and mortgages, was valued at £1000, taxation would only be oharged on £500, on account of the £600 exemption. In case the value, less improvements and mortgages, exceeds £1500, £1 of the £500 exemption is struck off for every £2 increase in value. This means that when the value exceeds by £1000 the £1500 already mentioned, the .£SOO exemption ceases. As an illustration, take the case of a man -who has land which, less improvements and mortgages, is worth £1400. He only pays taxation on £900, owing to the £500 exemption. But if his property is valued at £2000 he payo taxation on £1750, owing to £250 of the original £600 exemption having been wiped out at the rate of £l for every £2 increase in value above the £1500. There are two provisos to the above conditions— namely, where the value of the land and the amount due on mortgage to joint owners does not exceed the exemption limit, onlyone exemption ib allowed. That is to say, there is not an exemption for eaoh owner's shire. There is also provision for exemption where the owner is incapacitated by age, iilhealth, or other oause, provided that his income does not exceed & certain sum.—Pout.