Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-01-08
FIRST INCOME
TAX TEST SUIT
IS DISMISSED
Judge Lands of Chicago Finds
He Has no Jurisdiction
in Matter
[By Latest MALL

CHICAGO-Judge Lands sustained
the demurrer and dismissed the bin
in the case of Elsie De Wolfe against
the Continental and Commercial
Trust and Savings bank. He held
that the United States had no juris-
diction in the case.
Suit to test the constitutienality OF
the income tax law, the first litigation
to be directed against that measure
since it found place in the govern
ment statute books, was begun before
Federal Judge Landis in the United
States district court today. Early in
the hearing the question OF the. iuris-
diction of the court in the matter was
raised-by Judge Lands himself
and Attorney Levy Mayors statement
of the ease, which he had begun to
read, was stopped in order that the
problem of jurisdiction might be
thrashed out first. Desire of both
sides in. the case, to aid the court in
every way to hasten a decision was
expressed in order to bring the test
case as quickly as possible before the
supreme court for final solution.
Case That of Elsie De Wolfe.
The case is that of Elsie De Wolfe,
actress and painter, citizen of New
York, now resident in France, against
the Continental and Commercial
Trust and Savings bank. The plain
tiff asks damages to the amount of
$1,000, alleging that the bank refused
to make payment on coupons on so
bonds of the Appalachian Power
Company. The bank refused pay
ment because of the plaintiffs refus-
al to comply with the new tax regula-
ton which demands certificate of
ownership Of bonds. H..
Attorney W. Bourke Cochran of
New York and Attorney Colin G. H.
Fyffe of Chicago appeared for Miss
De Wolfe and Attorney Levy Mayer
for the bank.
Mayer Makes Statement.
Argument was started by Attorney
Mayer, VINO began a statement of the
suit to the court The declaration of
the plaintiff, he said. contained five
counts. which he proceeded to read
and demolish. He had reached the
third count, after presentation OF
reasons why. the first two should
gall and was proceeding with the
third in the same manner when tha
court took a hand with a series OF
questions tending to clear the Etmo
sphere. -
i When it became apparent through
Judge, Landis5 questioning that juris.
diction was involved the court indi
Gated that he would hear that matter
first-which brought Attorney Fyffe
to the bar and later Attorney Cochran
Then, until The close Of the session
the arguments all dealt with the ques
ton of jurisdiction to the exclusion el
the main question of the. constitution
ality of the income tax law. -
Takes Up First Two Counts.
In his talk Attorney Mayer attempt
ed to dispose Of the first two counts
IN the declaration by saying that theil
contents concerned only the payment
on coupons on bonds.
There is nothing n these tive
counts which contains any reference
to the income tax" he said. 1T Il
purely a civil suit matter and tht
courts cannot be relied upon, to tes
the constftutionality of the law The
second objection is that the amoun
sued for--on1y $10o0-does not fail
within the statute which requires tina
d suit brought in the federal eourt
must involve at least $4,000. There
fore, the case has no jurisdiction in Z
federal court. SO far as these counts
are concerned
This brought the question of jUris
diction to a head and brought about
the courts Interpretation.
Attorney Fyffc and Attorney Cock
IAN both asserted that the matter was
cHe arising under the federal revenue
laws and that the courts had repeat
I cdly held that question under the
revenue laws was-a matter for a fed
craT court t0i CONSIDER regardless O
the amount involved. It
| L