NON-SUBSIDY HOUSES.

Although the house may not qualify for the subsidy on account of exceeding the areas laid down, provided the value ascertained as above does not exceed £1500, the Local Authority are empowered to lend up to 90 per cent. of the value. The remarks regarding loans above apply.

HOUSES ALREADY ERECTED.

Since the passing of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1899 it has been possible to obtain from the Local Authority a loan on the security of a house already erected on terms more favourable than those usually granted by private lenders. Until brought into prominence by the press during the progress through Parliament of the Act of 1923 by which the original Act was amended-it had been previously amended by the earlier Housing Acts the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act were a dead letter. To few, I suspect, was even its existence known.

As amended by the Act of 1923, the Local Authority are empowered to grant loans, on the security of houses to be acquired, not exceeding 90 per cent. of the market value thereof, ascertained as above, provided such value does not exceed £1200. The value is the only criterion. The loan must be repaid with interest over a period not exceeding thirty years, and the method of repayment may be either of those previously stated. The rate of interest is fixed by the Secretary for Scotland and is at present 5 per cent. Under the Act the title in favour of the purchaser, as well as the security deed, falls to be prepared by an agent appointed by the Local Authority. A simplified form of discharge is provided, being merely a certificate by the town or county clerk that the loan has been repaid. This is written on the security writ and recorded in the appropriate register. The procedure on entering into possession has also been simplified. These simplifications might well have been introduced into the Act of 1923 so far as loans on the security of houses in course of erection are concerned. It should be noted that there is no time limit placed on applications under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, the Local Authorities under which are, in Counties including Burghs under 7000 in population, the County Council, and in other Burghs the Town Council.

MR ROBERT S. YOUNG, solicitor, Kinross, intimates that he has assumed as a partner his son, Mr David R. Young, solicitor. The business will be carried on under the firm name of Robert S. Young & Son.

The quarterly Examination in Law was held by the Examiners of Law Agents in Edinburgh last week, when 37 Candidates presented themselves for examination. Twenty-seven of these were examined in all the subjects and 17 passed, and 10 graduates in law, holding the Degree of LL.B. or B.L. of the Scottish Universities, were examined in Court Procedure, and 9 passed. The following are the successful candidates:

Charles F. Allan, North Lodge, Dunmore, Perth Road, Dundee; Ian H. Armour, 153 Queen Street, Glasgow; David Baird, 48 Castle Street, Edinburgh; Arthur W. S. Brown, 39 East Trinity Road, Edinburgh; Charles Bruce, c/o Messrs Joseph Johnston & Simpson, advocates, 82 Crown Street, Aberdeen; Charles J. Burnett, 2 Kilmaurs Terrace, Edinburgh; James Craigie, 41 Comely Bank Avenue, Edinburgh; William B. Cumming, Hawarden," Buffies Brae, Dunfermline; James Dick, 47 Midton Street, Springburn, Glasgow; John M. Erskine, 14 George Street, Edinburgh (Commercial Bank of Scotland); Arthur K. Falconer, 23 Briarbank Terrace, Edinburgh; Robert Fraser, 12 Cheyne Street, Edinburgh; George W. Harvey, 32 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh ; William R. Heggie, Priorybank, Dunfermline; Muriel I. Jeffrey, c/o Messrs Weir, Grieve & Jeffrey, Gordon Chambers, 90 Mitchell Street, Glasgow; Robert M. Leslie, c/o Robertson, 254 Bath Street, Glasgow; Alexander Macara, Town Clerk's Office, City Chambers, Glasgow; Charles B. M'Call, British Linen Bank House, Hawick; Hugh MacDougall, 60 Merchiston Avenue, Edinburgh; Robert M'Gill, 24 Sandgate, Ayr; Norman J. Millar, Sandringham, Barrhead; Henry W. Nimmo, National Bank of Scotland, Wishaw; William E. Robertson, c/o Andrew Aitken, Esq., solicitor, 38 Bath Street, Glasgow; Thomas Cunningham Sutherland, 8 Ormidale Terrace, Murrayfield, Edinburgh; Douglas S. Walker, c/o Messrs Adam, Thomson & Ross, 2 Union Terrace, Aberdeen; Hugh Watson, 73 George Street, Oban.

MR J. W. CRAWFORD, 26 Hamilton Street, Greenock, intimates that he has assumed Mr Herbert Henry Higgs, solicitor, as a partner in his firm of J. C. Smith, Macdonald & Crawford, solicitors, Greenock. Mr Higgs became an apprentice to that firm in 1908, and after completing his apprenticeship entered the office of Messrs Dalgleish, Dobbie & Co., S.S.C., Edinburgh, to get experience in Court of Session practice. Thereafter he joined the staff of Messrs Maclay, Murray & Spens, writers,

The Registrar, in deciding to register the mark "Cream o' the North," said that Mr Macintyre had sold whisky for many years in Glasgow and district under the name "Royal Northern Cream." The Registrar said that the two labels were wholly distinctive, and there was no probability of confusion between them. Mr Macintyre, in his evidence, said that the business which he was running was established in 1838, and the late Mr Archibald Lauder began selling his Royal Northern Cream" whisky at least fifty years ago, and obtained several gold medals at exhibitions. The whisky was commonly known as "Northern

Cream."

66

His Lordship, holding that no confusion would be caused by the registration of Mr Hutchison's mark, dismissed the appeal.

DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH COURTS.

Nevill v. Inland Revenue Commissioners.

REVENUE-ESTATE DUTY-ESTATE TAIL INALIENABLE BY STATUTE-INTEREST OF TENANT

(3) lands and other property rendered inalienable by statute 2 & 3 Philip and Mary, No. 22, in which he had a life interest. The subjects comprised in Class 3 passed to the present Marquess as tenant in tail male. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue determined that, for the purpose of assessment to estate duty, the interest of the tenant in tail in the inalienable property fell to be aggregated with the other two classes of property above described. This determination was affirmed by Sankey J. and on appeal by the majority of the Court of Appeal (Lord Sterndale M.R. and Younger L.J., Warrington L.J. dissenting). Held (dissenting Viscount Haldane L.C.) that as regards estates settled by Act of parliament estate duty was to be levied only on the value of the interest of the successor to such estates, and that such interest was not to be aggregated with other property passing on death, but was to be treated as an estate by itself. Decision of the Court of Appeal ([1923]2 K.B. 18) reversed. House of Lords (Viscount Haldane L.C., Viscount Cave, Lords Sumner, Parmoor, and Phillimore). - 11th February 1924.

In the Estate of Cowling deceased.
Jinkin v. Cowling and Others.

SUCCESSION

WILL REVOCATION - INTENTION-BURDEN OF PROOF-TORN WILL FOUND

IN TESTATOR'S REPOSITORY-WILLS ACT, 1837 (1 VICT. CAP. 26), SECTION 20. -The testatrix died on 1st December 1922. After her death two wills were found in her writing-desk. One dated 1919 was intact; the other dated 1921 was torn. The witness who found the torn

will was unable to state positively whether, when the will was found, the tear extended right across the page so as to divide it into two separate parts, that being its condition when produced in Court. The tear was across the dispositive part of the will, about midway down, and did not go through any word in the will. Held that the burden of proof of revocation was upon those who sought to displace the will; that, while the presumption of law, where a will was found torn, was that the testator had torn it, there was no necessary presumption that the testator had acted animo revocandi, and the Court must look at the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances; and that the circumstances of the present case were not such as to show any intention to revoke.-Prob., Div., and Adm. Div. (Sir Henry Duke P.). -14th February 1924.

Leivers v. Barber, Walker & Co.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

66

ACCIDENT ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE - EXCEPTION FROM GENERAL

دو

STATUTORY PROHIBITION - VERBAL PROHIBITION OVERRIDING SUCH EXCEPTION-WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906 (6 EDW. VII. CAP. 58), SECTION 1 (1).-Leivers, a miner in the employment of the respondents, was fatally injured while employed in haulage work. It was proved that he must have received his injuries while mounting or riding on a tub. He did not, as he was on haulage work, come within the scope of the general statutory prohibition contained in the Coal Mines Act, 1911, section 43, but had been verbally prohibited from mounting or riding upon tubs. Held that the deceased had disregarded the limitations of his employment, and had taken himself outside of it, and that consequently there could be no award of compensation. -Court of Appeal (Sir Ernest Pollock M.R., Warrington L.J., and Eve J.).-14th February 1924.

LAW LIBRARY.

BOOK NOTICES.

The Parochial Law of Tithes. By Rev. Thomas Miller. 1924. Edinburgh: W. Green &

Son Ltd. Price 6s.

At a time when teinds, their past and their future, are a matter of so much public discussion, and even controversy, this volume is particularly opportune. The readers of Mr Miller's articles in the "Juridical Review" will be among the most eager to welcome them in this collected form. There is no doubt of the originality or of the historical importance of the author's contribution to the early history of the law of teinds in Scotland; and his main thesis-the historic importance of the Concordia of King David I., and the wide effect of that legislation through the adoption of its principles by Pope Innocent the Great-is, we think, thoroughly well established in this volume. The argumentative tone which the writer is too fond of assuming may be more appropriate to ecclesiastical controversy than to the study of history or of law; but it need not detract from our respect for the profound learning and critical acumen displayed in his researches. When the dust of present controversies has subsided, we think that there will remain in this volume a valuable contribution to the history of Scottish and of European law.

Butterworth's Workmen's Compensation Cases. Vol. XVI. 1924. London: Butterworth & Co. Price 17s. 6d. net.

Prompt to its appointed date, Messrs Butterworth's volume of the year's cases on workmen's compensation comes to hand. It con

tains what ought to be the last cases on many of the long-standing conundrums of the 1906 Act, such as the question of what accidents "arise out of" the employment. For these are supposed to have been superseded by the new Act of last year. How far the legislation will prove, in its latest effort, to have been more intelligible or, shall we say, to have defeated the pernicious ingenuity of the legal mind, time will show; but there can be little doubt that there will still be scope for Messrs Butterworth's handy volume.

The Conduct of and Procedure at Public Meetings. By Albert Crew. Eighth Edition. 1924. London: Jordan & Sons Ltd. Price, by post, 5s. 5d.

In these days, when every man thinks himself qualified to express himself in public, there may be scope for such a book as this. It aims at guiding the promoters of all manner of public meetings, whether of companies, public bodies, or otherwise. But, not content with this, it goes on to give hints to would-be orators on the art of public speaking. Of these hints, perhaps the gem is in the direction that a speaker should "try to get his audience to believe that he is sincere." Many will find some practical guidance in its pages.

Glen's Law of Public Health and Local Government.
Fourteenth Edition. By the late Alex. Glen,
K.C., M.A., LL.M. (Cantab.), Bencher of the
Middle Temple, and Randolph A. Glen and
E. W. Bailey, Barristers-at-Law. Vol. I.,
Part I., Div. II., Public Health Act, 1890;
Div. III., Public Health Act, 1907. Part II.,
Div. I., Diseases; Div. II., Food and Drugs;
Div. III., Housing and Town Planning. In
Five Parts or Two Volumes. Sweet & Maxwell
Ltd.
Price 105s. net.

Statutory Rules and Orders, 1923. Published by Authority. H.M. Stationery Office. 35s. net. Butterworth's Workmen's Compensation Cases. Vol. XVI. (New Series). 1st February 1923 to 31st January 1924. Edited by His Honour Judge Ruegg, K.C., and Edgar Dale, Barristerat-Law. Butterworth & Co. Price 17s. 6d. net.

First Elements of Supreme Court Practice. By T. Baty, Legal Adviser to the Imperial Japanese Foreign Office. Second Edition of "First Elements of Procedure." Effingham Wilson. Price 10s. net.

The Law of Joint Stock Companies under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. By James Walter Smith, LL.D., Barrister-at-Law. Revised by a Barrister. Effingham Wilson. Price 3s. 6d.

FOREIGN TRAVEL AND INCOME

66

ΤΑΧ.

66

The circular and memorandum recently issued from Somerset House are strong indications of the importance to the Exchequer and to individuals of questions which arise regarding the bearing upon income tax of such matters as residence," ordinary residence," "occasional residence abroad," presence in this country "for some temporary purpose only," and "six months in any year of assessment." Various considerations combine to give to these matters a greatly increased importance from that which formerly attached to them. Thus the burden of income tax and

super-tax is now vastly heavier; foreign travel and temporary foreign residences are increasingly attractive; and there is now an enormous bulk of British Government securities, the income of which is tax-free to people who are

not "ordinarily resident" in this country.

Having regard to the framework of the Income Tax Acts it would be surprising if one were to find that they are anything like clear or con

sistent in these matters, and in point of fact the position presented in those Acts is exactly the reverse. People have of recent years become very much alive to the taxation advantages which they are enabled to score by carefully calculated tours, the factor which chiefly works in their calculations being the arithmetical item of the six months. As a practical matter those questions chiefly affect the income of the British Government securities already referred to, and income derived from sources outside of this country, such as the securities of British Dominions and foreign

States, and from companies in the British Dominions and in foreign States. There has been a practice of British bankers cashing such dividends, without deducting tax, on certain information and certificates being furnished. This is the immediate point of application of the recent circular from Somerset House. The purpose of that circular is to secure that in nearly all cases the Banks shall deduct tax at the source, and of course account for that tax to the Exchequer. That puts the Department in the strong position of being in possession, and it leaves the investor to press his case in the form of a claim for repayment. Before repayment is made the whole facts will in each case be investigated, and repayment will be made only if, in the opinion of the Department, the investor is entitled to it under the statutory rules as interpreted by the Department. No doubt the Department will not be final, for there may be appeals to the Law Courts, but that is a heavy burden for an individual, and therefore it is not unlikely

that the recent circular will operate very materially in favour of the Exchequer.

66

In the circular and memorandum the Department is at considerable pains to set out and illustrate what, in the Board's view," is the real position. It may be suggested that it would have been a distinct improvement if there had been one paper and not two. As they stand, both of them have to be read and considered and taken in combination in order to put oneself in possession of what it is that the Board of Inland Revenue maintain. The most general statement is contained in the memorandum, where the following proposition is put forward :

A British subject who has been ordinarily resident in this country, and who adopts the habit of spending a part of the income tax year abroad and the remainder of the year, although less than six months, in this country is normally regarded as still resident, and ordinarily resident, in this country.

This requires a good deal of clearing up. It

is of course not a legal deliverance, but merely a Departmental pronouncement, which may be right or may be wrong. It labours under the serious disadvantage that it totally ignores what most people would consider the important factor of whether a house is, or is not, retained and maintained in this country during the period of absence from this country. This is one instance of the mischief of having the Board's views dissipated through two separate papers. The above quotation is from the memorandum, but when one refers to the first paragraph of the separate circular it is seen that the Board deal with that factor, but even there in a misty and inconclusive manner. What they there

say is that :

There appears to be a widespread impression [note that it is not said to be a false impression] that persons who do not retain a residence in this country, and who reside here for less than six months of the income tax year, are consequently not liable to income tax for that year in respect of their income from the classes of investments which have been mentioned.

In the next paragraph of the circular all that is said is that that view leads to "considerable misapprehension," which in plain English probably means that the widespread impression is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. And even in the first paragraph of the circular distinct ambiguity arises as to the meaning of a " residence." Sometimes that expression means stone and lime or bricks and mortar, and sometimes it describes a legal conception divorced from physical things and local habitation. The Department knows perfectly well that the word "residence" has these two entirely different meanings, but nevertheless ambiguity has been allowed to remain.

P

The papers just issued are confined to the case of British subjects, and with reference to them the Department lays down two principles, one of which is not to be found in any Act, and while the other is practically a quotation from the Acts, it stands a good deal of construction. One of those principles is said to be that:

a person habitually spending a portion of the year in two countries may be resident and ordinarily resident in each country.

Here again nothing is said as to a house in either of those countries, and we infer that the attempt is to maintain the proposition whether there be houses in both countries, or a house in only one of the countries, or no house in either of the countries. The proposition or rule is expressed in very narrow terms. It appears to be limited to the case of British subjects who spend part of every year in this country and the other part of the same year in another country, and that the same other country. It is not quite clear what Somerset House has to do with whether or not there is residence in the other country, or whether there is one other country or are two or more other countries, so long as the facts are such that it can be held that there is residence in this country. On the one hand it cannot be denied that in the eye of the law a man or woman may be held to be resident within the same tax year in each of two or more countries. On the other hand it is not understood to be a legal necessity that every man and every woman shall be resident, or have a legal residence, in any country at all. It is certainly perfectly clear that in the legal sense an individual cannot be said to be resident, or to have a residence, in each and every country in which he may set foot, irrespective of the length and purpose and nature of his stay. Nor can it be admitted that this question is decided against him by

that the absence from this country was of the merely occasional character here indicated. It may, however, readily be agreed that, if the whole home environment remains that of the United Kingdom, a mere journey on business, or for health, or on pleasure bent, will not form any answer to the full demands of the Inspector of Taxes. The rule speaks of "leaving" this country, but only when the leaving is of a very qualified nature, namely, for the purpose of

occasional residence abroad. It will not do to take the one without the other, and therefore the reverse of light is shed upon the subject by paragraph 5 of the circular which runs thus :

It is the British subject leaving this country after a period of ordinary residence here whose case is most often productive of misunderstanding, and it is to this class of case that the memorandum is especially directed.

Here it will be observed all reference to the occasional residence abroad is dropped. But the Board proceed to develop the general proposition under three illustrative heads. These are:

1. A British subject who has ordinarily resided in this country, goes abroad for a definite lengthy period in circumstances that preclude his visiting this country except on holiday. It is admitted by the Department that this confers immunity. Instances are army officers on foreign service and civilians going abroad on a business contract. It is rather difficult in either of those cases to justify the word "definite," and in the civilian instance the Board endeavour to supply this at their own hand by postulating an arbitrary period of at least three years' foreign duty. The fact of course is that they might equally well have said two years or four years. This of itself shews that, so far from the matter being definite, it is exactly the reverse, and that

domicile; or (3) that he has been in the habit of residing, or even in continuous residence, in that country up to the time when his roaming faculty developed.

The other general principle or rule is that there is tax liability on the score of residence in this country of

any British subject whose ordinary residence has been in this country and who has left this country for the purpose only of occasional residence abroad.

This does not really advance one very far. It only shifts the issue from "residence" to "occasional residence,” and one would need to know a great deal about the occasion before admitting

when immunity is achieved it operates only from the date of departure from this country. That is to say that in an ordinary case there will be two broken periods in the tax year in which the departure takes place. The period from 5th April preceding up to the date of departure may be either less or more than six months, but no matter how short it is there can be no immunity for that period. The reason is that, whether the period be less or more than six months, the residence in this country during that period was of the same continuous and absolute quality as the residence here for all the preceding years of the life of the individual.