1855.

In re MICKLE

THWAIT.

the words had been, that, on the event taking place, he "shall give up" the 500l. a year, he would have been "bound to relinquish " it; but as the language of the covenant is, that the annuity "shall cease, determine, and be void," he is "deprived" of it.] It was never intended that a successor should only be taxed upon the balance of benefit which he might derive from his succession. The object of the legislature was to tax all property acquired by succession. The settlor would not be chargeable in respect of this annuity, for it has ceased to exist. What allowance could be made in respect of a covenant which is at an end?

PARKE, B.-I am of opinion that our decision ought to be in favour of the petitioner. It is a well-established rule, that the subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose; and also, that every Act of Parliament must be read according to the natural construction of its words. Now the 38th section of this Act provides, that "where any successor upon taking a succession shall be bound to relinquish or be deprived of any other property, the Commissioners shall, upon the computation of the assessable value of his succession, make such an allowance to him as may be just in respect of the value of such property." The interpretation clause enables us to understand what is meant in this case by the word "property." It is not goods and chattels, it is not a lease for a term of years, but it is money payable under any engagement." Is it possible, in ordinary parlance, to say that at the time when the petitioner succeeded to Sir Sotherton Micklethwait's property, he did not lose 500l. a year, which was payable under that engagement? It is true that the engagement ceased, but he has lost the benefit of a covenant to pay 500l. a year. Then in the absence of any further words to express the meaning of the term "property," this must be considered to be property. He has lost that, and got an estate of much more value; but then the value of what the succession

brings to him is the value of that property minus 500l. a year. If the legislature meant that the successor should not be exempt from this claim unless the property relinquished was also property to be taxed, and upon which the succession duty should be paid by another, they would have said so, but they certainly have not.

ALDERSON, B.—I am of the same opinion. Reading the 38th section together with the interpretation clause, the meaning is perfectly plain. The 38th section says, “that when any successor, upon taking a succession," that is, "any property chargeable with duty under this Act, shall be bound to relinquish or be deprived of any other property," that is, shall be bound to relinquish or be deprived of money payable under an engagement,' "the Commissioners shall, upon the computation of the assessable value of his succession, make such an allowance to him as may be just in respect of the value of such property." If therefore the 500l. a year annuity which the petitioner loses was upon his life only, and the property to which he succeeds is property in fee, it may be, that, in the computation of the value of it, those circumstances must be taken into consideration; but upon that point it is unnecessary to give any opinion.

PLATT, B., concurred.

Bovill applied for the costs of the appeal, and referred to the 50th section of the Succession Duty Act as g ving the Court a discretion as to costs.

PER CURIAM-We think that the petitioner is entitled

to costs.

Rule accordingly.

1855.

In ve MICKLE

THWAIT.

1855.

Nov. 30.

A conveyance, executed in

a sale of land in Australia,

In Re WRIGHT and THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND

REVENUE.

THIS was a case stated by the Commissioners of Inland

England upon Revenue, pursuant to the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, s. 15, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, s. 13, to enable S. Wright to appeal to requires an ad this Court against the determination of the Commissioners as to the stamp duty chargeable on the deed hereinafter

valorem

stamp.

set out.

The deed is an indenture, dated the 6th of January, 1855, and made between E. Woodhouse, of Wilton Park, in the parish of North Walsham, in the county of Norfolk, and Diana, his wife, of the one part; and S. Wright, of Lockleys, in the province of South Australia, of the other part; whereby, after reciting a grant made to E. Woodhouse, his heirs and assigns, of certain land and hereditaments, situate in the said province; and also reciting that the said S. Wright had contracted with the said E. Woodhouse for the purchase of the said land and hereditaments for the sum of 800l.; and that the said Diana Woodhouse had consented to release her dower out of the same; it was witnessed, that, in consideration of 800l. to E. Woodhouse paid by S. Wright, E. Woodhouse did grant, bargain, sell, and release, and Diana, the wife of E. Woodhouse, in order to bar her dower, did release unto S. Wright and his heirs, all that section of land situated in the province of South Australia, containing eighty acres, numbered 162 in the provincial survey, &c., together with the appurtenances, &c.; To hold the same unto S. Wright and his heirs, to the use of S. Wright his heirs and assigns, for ever.

The said S. Wright presented to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the said deed unstamped, and desired to have their opinion as to the stamp duty with which the

same was chargeable; and the Commissioners being of opinion that the deed was chargeable, under the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, with the ad valorem duty of 4l. as a conveyance upon the sale of property for 8007., they assessed and charged the sum of 4l. as such duty.

The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the said deed is chargeable with any, and what, stamp duty.

Lush for the appellant.-The deed in question is not liable to any stamp duty. The Stamp Acts relate solely to land in Great Britain or Ireland, and do not apply to conveyances in this country of land abroad. The 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 2, enacts, "That there shall be raised, levied, and paid, &c., in and throughout the whole of Great Britain, for and in respect of the several instruments," &c., "mentioned in the schedule, the duties there specified." Under the title, "Bargain and Sale," Sched. Pt. 1, the duties are, in express terms, confined to lands or hereditaments in England. Under the head “ Conveyance," Sched. Pt. 1, an ad valorem duty is imposed upon every conveyance, "upon the sale of any lands," &c., "in respect of the principal or only deed," &c. Then, in a subsequent clause, which defines the meaning of the terms "principal deed," mention is made of conveyances of "lands and hereditaments in England." Under the head "Mortgage," Sched. Pt. 1, no reference is made to the locality of the land, because all the provisions contemplate dealing with property in this country. The 13 & 14 Vict. c. 97, only altered the amount of duty chargeable. Reliance will be placed on the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 55; but that statute was never intended to apply to conveyances in this country of land abroad. Its object was to remove doubts as to the duty payable where a different rate is chargeable under the Acts relating to Great Britain and Ireland. It provides that every deed which relates wholly to property in Ireland shall be chargeable with the duty imposed by the

1855.

In re

WRIGHT.

1855.

In re WRIGHT.

Irish Acts; that if the deed relates to property in Great Britain," or elsewhere than in Ireland," it shall be chargeable with the duty imposed by the English Acts; and that if it relates to property in Ireland, and also to property in Great Britain, "or elsewhere than in Ireland," it shall be chargeable with the English duty. And there is a further provision, that those duties only shall be chargeable, whether the deed is executed within the United Kingdom or not. [Parke, B.-The title "Conveyance," Sched. Pt. 1, has the words, "upon the sale of any lands," &c., "or of any right, title, interest, or claim in, to, out of, or upon any lands," &c. Now, this deed operates to bar the wife's dower in the land.] If this deed is subject to stamp duty, it would follow that every conveyance in this country of land in France is also liable to stamp duty.

Pigott appeared on behalf of the Crown, but was not called upon to argue.

PARKE, B.-I cannot find any words in the 55 Geo. 3 c. 184, which exempt this deed from duty. That Act imposes an ad valorem duty on every conveyance upon the sale of land, provided that the deed is executed in this country.

ALDERSON, B.-We cannot restrain the general words of the Act.

PLATT, B., concurred.

Judgment for the Crown.