The Express.
London, England, 1858-05-12 00:00:00

Rata inidligna.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-MAY 11.

Plains at NY Prim at Westminster.—Bstore Mr. Baron
Martia and Spacial Jades.)
REVENUE CASES.

INS AITOZNIT-0 LH BRAG V.

SIM. -.- LIABILITY Or

ANNOPTAPITS TO PAY IXOOIIII TAI.

Tbs was an 111;;Iation, Med by the Attorney-General,
spinet the defendant, Elisabeth Shiel, for having on two
tannedose refitted to allow the deductions for income tax from
her 111111utty of lOU, whereby she incurred a penalty for each
armee of 601. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Wilde sod Mr. Deaver conducted the case for the
mown. Mr. Collier and Mr. Henry James were counsel for
the delenthint. _

ler.ColemsU having made the usual proclamation in cams
of misdemeanour,
Kr. Baron Martin rid—ls there any act of parliament
which makes this a miedemsanour P

Mr. Wilde—Nov my lord.
Mr. Baron Martin—Then there ought to be no proclama-
tion to answer a misdemeanour.

Mr. Wild.—lts proclamation Is made according to the
old practice of the Court of Exchequer.
Mr. Baron Martin—Then the proclamation ought to all
upon the defendant to answer the truth, which is why she
dose not pay her debts.
Mr. R ills said this information had been Sled by the
Attorney. General to recover two penalties of 601. each from
the defentlent, for having refused, on two occasion', in 1866,
to make an allowance for income tax with respect to en
annuity paid by the owners of three houses at
Tsignmouth, on which the annuity was charged under
her marriage settlement. The defendant, Elisabeth tibia.,
became entitled to an annuity of 1001. cc the death of her
husband in 1844, and from that time up to 1866 she regu-
larly allowed the deductions paid by the owners of the pro-
perty, a family named Burrell, and which were returned to
as her, her income was not then chargeable with income tax.
The war with Russia, however, rendered it imperative on
the legislature to enact that the tax should apply to incomes
of 100/. instead of 160/. ; and on the 29th Sept., 1856, when
a formal tender of her quartet's annuity, less the income tax,
11. 13a. 4d., was made se her by Mr. Burrell, she refund to
receive it, and Mr. Burrell paid the amount clear of all de-
ductions. On two subsequent condone she refused to make
the allowance, and under the advice of her attorney put an
execntlon Into the cottages, and Mr. Bartell bad to pay the
amount of her distress warrant. The learned counsel hang
eked the clauses of the Inconte•tax Acts, 6 and 0 Vic., c. 36,
sec. 60; 16 and 17 Vic., c. 34, sec. 40. sad the 18 Vic., which
imposes a malty of 601. for the amen charged in the in-
formation,esid that it would be contended for the defendant
that the annuity was to be psid to her free of all taxes, and
the question, therefore, would be, did that override an act of
parliament.
The original assessment of the three houses on which the
annuity was charged having been put in evidence,
Mr. William Burrell deposed that the cottages belonged to
his brother, his sister, and himself. Be proved the receipts
of the defendant for the payments made from time to time,
from 1844 to the 26th of Anse, 1856, the last occasion beton
the dispute, when the receipt was for 211. 13s. 4d., being a
quarter's payment of the annuity, lass income tax. On his
offering her 231. 6s. Bd. on the 29th of September, 1856, lira
&Jet gave him a receipt for 231. fla. . " pert payment,"
which he refined. She demandedd 261. In full, which he paid
her, giving her notice that an action would be brought
against her for the penalty to which she had rendered her-
e& liable by her refusal to make the deduction.
Miss Jane Burrell, who had accompanied her brother, cor-
roborated his statement as to what had taken place during
the interview. On the Bth of January, 1857, witness accom-
panied her brother John to Mrs. Shiers lodging, when he
tendered her a quarter's annuity ism a half-yeses income
tax. Mrs. Shied declined having anything to do with it,
sad said she would send her solicitor, Mr. Megisson, but he
did not mane. The money was subsequently tendered to lir.
Megisson.
Mr. Collier submitted that what took place with the soli-
citor, Mr. Megisson, era' not evidence.
Mr. llaron Martin thought that this lady bad planed her-
self in the Lands of her solicitor, an what had occurred
with him was therefore evidence for the Jury.
The witness proceeded to say that Mr. Regiment had said
there was 751. due, 251. the balm", due from the first
atarter, 251. income tax deducted, and 261. the quarter thin
and that it was to be paid free of all deductions.
r. John Burrell gave similar evidence, and proved Mr.
Megteson's handwriting to a letter.
lir. Collier objected to the admission of the letter until it
was shown that Mr. Megisson acted under the authority of
the defendant.

His lordahtp sold the letter was evidence to go to the
Jury as Mr. Megieeon wee acting for' the defedent es his
solicitor.
The letter dated July, 1656, which wee a notice that
unless the amount, free from all deductions, were peid, a die-
tree' would be put in, was then read.
Examination continued—Mr. Megieson said 761. wax due.
Whom, told him that he held a receipt for the bet quarter,
aad the matter stood over. finbsequently witness went to
Taignmouth-plami and found three men In pontainion of the
three houses. Witness saw one of the wanes* which was
signed by John Smillt, one of the defendant's trustees. One
of the men demanded M. 18s.
This closed the case for the crown.

Mr. Te7z submittad lier;;Ts no case to go to the
jury.
Mr. Baron Martin said it was his 'own imprerlon that the
defendant bad subjected herself to penalties, but be gave this
=iwithout wishing it to be regarded as a decision, and
t that the question ought to be brought before the full
court.
Mr. Collier then addressed the jury on the bon, stating
that, uwier the advice of i friend. Mr. Wallace, and her at-
torney, the defendant had not Whin into the trap laid for her
by Mr. Burrell, who wanted to file an information against
her, and had not refused to receive the money less the in-
owns tax. Her impression was that she was to resales her
annuity, which was all she had, free from all deductions ;
but if the jury believed her svidenoe, that she
had not made a seined to make the deductions, which would
lay her open to rissaltio, the jury would, by their
verdict of n Not Guflty" cut abort this knotty point of law.
He did not see why, on the part of the crown, all these
efforts should be used to fix this old lady with penalties
when she eartaisly bad acted under the belief that, according
to the terms of her marriage settlement, ales was entitled to
1001. • year clear. The learned mined then called the de-
fentient.

Mr. Baron Martin said that this being en information for
penalties, the defendant could not be
,examined.
Mr. William Wallace was then called, and deposed that
when Mr. and Mire Burrell called on the defendant, they
*ere woompauled by a boy who wee intended to be a wit-
ness. Mr. Burrell paid the defendant had incurred a penalty
for not allowing the income tax. She said if *he
had a right to pay it she, bad no objection to pay
It; and she referred to her marriage rettlement.
Witness went for the defendant's solicitor, Mr.
Megisson, to whom Mr. Burrell tendered some money. Mr.
Megtmon counted the money, and wrote out a receipt which
Mr. Burrell refused to take, and asked Mr. Megiseon did be
refuse to allow the income tax. Mr. Megieson said he did
act refuse anything. Mr. Burrell said the receipt was not
for enough money, and Mr. Megiason said he would sive
him a receipt for any money he chose to pey. Mrs. Shed
did not interfere at all, nor sou she mined any question after
Mr. Megisson came. Mr. Burrell put down more money wad
Mr. Megieson wrote a receipt, but Mr. Burrell refused to take
the receipt because it had Mr. Mecou'a signature. The
money remained on the table until left the room. Mrs.
Shed did not refuse at en period to al w tbe deductions.
Mr. Wilde having to cries-exactthe the witness,
The learned rouoselut both sides addressed the jury.
Mr. Baron Martin—Do you rotor one penalty or two ?
Mr. Wilde—For two, my lord.
Mr. Baron Martin said the real question in this one—sod
it wise very important one—was whether a person who has
en
annuity under a marriage eettlanicat was liable to the pay-
ment of Mooing tax. That was a legal question and one
which the jury cold not properly determine. This informa-
tion vie properly Bled by the Attorney-General at the in-
stance of the Inland Revenue; for, he was bound to Pee that
the an of parliament was carried out, If they were of
Zaion that the defendant had substantially refoeed to
the deductions, then she was liable to the
rwlities. He thought that reefed on the warrant of
for they should judge by acts, not words, in decid-
ing whether there had been a enbstantiel refusal to allow the
dawitione by the defendant. La adverting to the evidence,
the learned judge said that it appeared to him that nothing
mold have been fairer or mon proper than the conduct of
the astwalla in the transaction. If they were of opinion that
on the two occasions the defendant bed refused to allow the
deduction of income tax, then the qutstion of her liability to
the penalties would be diecuesed in the full court, unfettered
by any opinion which he might give on the matter.
The jury returned fa vadat for the crown, the foreman eh.
serving that they were of opinion that the attorney ought to
par the penalties, and not the defendant.
The verdict was then entered for the crown, Mr. Baron
Martin reserving leave to the defendant to move the full
court on the point of law u to has liability.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—MAT 11.
t3ittinge In Bear.—Before Imam Wightman, Erle, rood
Crompton, sad Batas Bramwell, Watacm, sad Channel.
POWIS V. BUTLIS AND OTHENS.-211 ZOTAL BRITISH

TANK.
This was a writ of error from a judgment of the Court of
Common Flees. The plaintiffs were jittligment creditors of
the Royal Brunk Beak, against which they issued execution
without effect. Charles Walton was • shareholder in the
bank, and his tiaras appeared on the memorials filed moderato
Joint Stock Bank AM of the 7 and 8 Vic., o. 113. He disdi•
April, and the plaintiffs sought to issue execution against the
cistindants as his executors. The question raised was mir
dm the executors of • shareholder in the bank, who wanderd
at the time the memorial was filed, and before the action wee
brought simian the bank, were liable. The Court of Com-
mon Hese held they were nut, and gave Judgment for the de-
fendants. _ _

Yr. &salty, for the plidatifte, ociatentled that under the
Joint Stock Beak Aot, the 'mouton et a doomed perm
whose item still appeared cm the rselearial were liable to
have execiatiao matted manic them. The weds of the set
airily proved this " The perm whose woe appeared ill
the monerlal mad Ifs perstusl topiramestativee."
Mr. Justice Crompton rid the man was deed. How sell
bo be • penal, he was only a body F.
Mr. Berg laid the creditor having ememiled Homer
• toad the sans of Charles Waite% mil bow °wild Hs

siditor tell be wee deed, mid he should not wi be-
cause the iterporlel was Incorrect. _ _

iii:isailaiaPpeaTeriloiii; defendants, bat was not
ogled upsa to emus the case.
Mr. Jostle* WightmAn said that the court were unani-
mously of °pixies that the judgment of the court below was
right. The question turned on the casetruadon of the 21st
males of the 7th and Bth Via, a. 11S, which sansei that
whose names emend upon the memorial end their
alMireprosastatives Amid be liable. In the gamma cam it
was the duty of the proper parson to deliver a nasenorisi
between the 26th of Feb. and the 26th of March, but that
wee sot does until May. Before the memorial was filed, the
party whose name was said to be on it, woe dead. The
qnseake thsa wee, whether, as his name appesred on the
memerial Sled after his death, be °odd be said to be a person
whose name appeared on the last memorial flied. It wee
clearly not the name of a person, for he was dead, and the
jadamant of the Court of Common flees must be 'armed.
leftmost 'firmed.

CENZRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.-MAY 11.
(Before the Recorder.)

Grew Batelle, 65, deecribed as & clerk, we placed at the
Mir to plead to three indictments, the first of which charged
him with feloniously forging the signature for a transfer of
stock, to the amount of 1,0281. 6e. 3d., with intent to defraud
the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, end the
others with forging a certificate of the death and burial of
the pteoa interested in the stock in question.
. Gaud appeared for the prosecution ; Serjeent Bel-
land= was specially retained, with Mr. Bodkin, on behalf of
the prisoner.
It will be remembered that the prisoner, who is a clergy-
man, wee committed upon the charge of forging the signa-
ture of a gentleman who we his co-trustee for certain stock
in the Bank of England, and at the same time repre-
sented that this gentleman was deed, and produced certifi-
cates of his death and burial, which owdfloatee were the
foundation of the other two indictments.
:sEisoner The , who appeared to be sufferintuareite mental
pleaded guilty to the whole of the charges.
' t Saneness add be appeared with his learned
on behalf of the prisons, and upon a consideration of
all the Lots and the position of the prisoner and his con-
ZeTlolla, they had come to the conclusion that the moat ad-
visable tonne to be taken was that the prisoner should plead
guilty, end that the matter should be left entirely in the
hands of the court. _ . _ .

ThsitsooriTe7tien admired the prisoner, and said that
he had pleaded guilty to three indictments, all, no doubt,
connected with the rime transaction, but involving an offence
of a very serious description, and for which, only a few years
ago, his life would have men forfeited. It was very painful
to have to par sentence upon • person in his position, but he
should not be doing his duty to the public if he were to per
over such en offence with a light punishment, and he there-
fore felt compelled to order Wm to be kept in penal servitude
for ten years.
The prisoner, who did sot once hold up hie head daring
the ink wee thee removed from the bar.
hasseit WJGrw Pack 48, was charged with embezzling
101.2 e. 6d. and 101. 95.6 d., the moseys of his master, Stephen
Janne Thwaites._ _ _ _

The Jury found the prisms Guilty, and evidence having
been given of the prisoner's having been previously oonviMad
of the seme offence, and sentenced to seven years' penal servi-
tude, the prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, on
the ground of hie having committed the crime in comequenee
of the pressure upon him of • large family.
The Recorder sentenced him to eighteen months' imprison-
ment, with hard labour.
William Meek, 28, was charged with stealing • watch and
chain, value 271., the property of James Dobritovitch, captain
of an Austrian merchant vessel, on the occasion of the axe-
cation of Lad at Newgate.
The prisoner was found Guilty.
A pre viola oonviction having been proved, he was ma-
tenoed to four years' penal servitude.
Dew../ M'Cartity, 21, was also charged with stealing a
watch at the execution of
The jury found him Chully, and he was motemed to two
yearn' imprisonment and hard labour.