CO129-557-12 Armstrong and Turner v. Estate Duty Commissioner- appeal to Privy Council 18-5-1936 - 2-10-1936 — Page 30

مسفر (3)

29

V.8/176/1936.

RECE

30 JUL 1936 0.0. RECY

29th July, 1936.

Dear Gent,

As these Solicitors write to us at the direction of

the Secretary of State, we prefer to keep to the usual

channels of communication between public departments

and reply to you rather than to them.

There is no objection, so far as we are concerned,

to your telling them, for what it is worth, that our

practice in such cases is as it is stated to be in the

passage from Dymond on Death Duties to which they refer,

and that Hanson on Death Duties, in so far as it says

anything different, gives in our opinion an incorrect

account of it.

We must point out, however, that (a) the Hong Kong

Government and ourselves are working under different

statutes which may, for all we know, well justify

different practices, and (b) it is quite certain that no

Court, whatever statute it is construing, is going to be

in the least impressed by being told what our practice is.

G.E.J.Gent, Esq., D.S.O., 0.B.E., M.C.

/I

Page 30Page 31