CO129-557-12 Armstrong and Turner v. Estate Duty Commissioner- appeal to Privy Council 18-5-1936 - 2-10-1936 — Page 53

10

55

15

Judgment

This submission has not been seriously argued, nor is Mr. Macnamara's No. 10. diffidence in this matter difficult to understand. The contention is in my of the judgment entirely without foundation. The Ordinance of 1932 provides in Chief section 9 (6) a simple machinery for the calculation of duty in such cases as this, Justice and the fact that the Ordinance also contains a schedule for use where appli- Petition. cable, in the calculation of reversionary interests is entirely beside the point.

This appeal is dismissed with costs.

on the

27th June 1935. (Continued)

Sd/ A. D. A. MACGREGOR,

Chief Justice,

27th June, 1935.

20

No. 11. Motion for leave to appeal to the Full Court.

In the Supreme Court of Hong Kong

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ESTATE DUTY APPEAL

MISC. PROC. No. 31 of 1935.

APPEAL. NO. 14 of 1935.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR CATCHICK

PAUL CHATER, KT., C.M.G., late of Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong, Financier, deceased.

and

IN THE MATTER of the Estate Duty Or- dinances 1915 and 1932.

No. 11. Motion for leave to appeal to the Full Court. 2nd Novem- ber, 1935.

and

IN THE MATTER of the Interpretation Ordinance 1911.

TAKE NOTICE that the Court will be moved at 10 o'clock on Tuesday, the 3rd day of December 1935, or so soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard by Counsel for the Honourable Sir William Edward Leonard Shenton, Kt., and