Potter,
J.:—This
is
a
proceeding
by
way
of
Information
within
Section
30
of
the
Exchequer
Court
Act,
chapter
34
of
R.S.C.
1927,
as
amended,
now
Section
29
of
chapter
98
of
R.S.C.
1952,
brought
within
the
provisions
of
Section
108
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act,
chapter
179
of
R.S.C.
1927,
as
amended,
now
Section
50
of
chapter
100
of
R.S.C.
1952,
to
recover
the
sum
of
$1,827.34,
as
taxes,
which
the
defendant
was
allegedly
liable
to
pay
to
Her
Majesty
in
the
period
from
October
1,
1952,
to
December
31,
1952,
under
Section
80,
subsection
(1)
and
Schedule
I,
paragraph
3(a)
of
said
chapter
179
of
R.S.C.
1927,
as
amended,
now
Section
23(1)
of
chapter
100
of
R.S.C.
1952,
and
Schedule
I,
paragraph
3(a)
thereto,
which
section
and
Schedule
are
in
part
as
follows:
4
23.
(1)
Whenever
goods
mentioned
in
Schedules
I
and
II
of
this
Act
are
imported
into
Canada
or
taken
out
of
warehouse
or
manufactured
or
produced
in
Canada
and
delivered
to
a
purchaser
thereof
there
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected,
in
addition
to
any
other
duty
or
tax
that
may
be
payable
under
this
Act
or
any
other
statute
or
law,
an
excise
tax
in
respect
of
goods
mentioned
(a)
in
Schedule
I,
at
the
rate
set
opposite
to
each
item
in
said
schedule,
computed
on
the
duty
paid
value
or
the
sale
price,
as
the
case
may
be
;
Schedule
I
3.
(a)
Electrical
appliances
adapted
to
household
or
apartment
use,
viz.:
blankets
;
chafing
dishes;
coffee
makers;
curling
irons
or
tongs;
dish
washers;
food
or
drink
mixers;
food
choppers
and
grinders
;
floor
waxers
and
polishers;
garbage
disposal
units;
hair
dryers;
irons
and
ironers
;
Juice
extractors;
kettles;
portable
humidifiers
;
razors
and
shavers
;
toasters
of
all
kinds;
vacuum
cleaners
and
attachments
therefor;
waffle
irons
twenty-five
(formerly
fifteen)
per
cent.’’
The
plaintiff
also
claims
penalties
imposed
under
the
provisions
of
the
said
statute
up
to
the
30th
day
of
April,
1953,
amounting
to
$50.28,
and
additional
penalties
or
interest
subsequent
to
the
30th
day
of
April,
1953,
and
prior
to
the
date
of
judgment.
The
plaintiff
alternatively
claims
the
sum
of
$1,827.34,
plus
a
penalty
of
$500.00
under
the
provisions
of
Section
119
of
said
chapter
179,
as
amended,
now
Section
61
of
chapter
100,
R.S.C.
1952,
which
is
as
follows
:
‘‘
61.
Everyone
liable
under
this
Act
to
pay
to
Her
Majesty
any
of
the
taxes
hereby
imposed,
or
to
collect
the
same
on
Her
Majesty’s
behalf,
who
collects,
under
colour
of
this
Act,
any
sum
of
money
in
excess
of
such
sum
as
he
is
hereby
required
to
pay
to
Her
Majesty,
shall
pay
to
Her
Majesty
all
monies
so
collected
and
shall
in
addition
be
liable
to
a
penalty
not
exceeding
$500.00.”
During
the
period
in
question,
the
defendant
manufactured
or
produced
an
aluminum
coffee
percolator,
about
four
and
three-quarter
inches
in
diameter,
which
was
similar
in
construction
to
the
ordinary
aluminum
coffee
percolator
except
that
its
bottom
was
not
flat
but
between
one-half
and
three-quarters
of
an
inch
inside
the
edges,
was
recessed
about
one-quarter
of
an
inch,
at
a
diameter
of
about
three
and
one-half
inches
and
in
the
centre
there
was
a
hinged
piece
of
aluminum
about
three-
sixteenths
of
an
inch
wide,
so
arranged
that
it
could
be
pulled
down
to
a
position
in
which
it
projected
about
one
and
one-half
inches
perpendicularly
from
the
bottom
and
when
folded
upward,
against
the
bottom,
allowed
the
percolator
to
stand
in
a
level
position
on
a
flat
surface.
In
the
lower
end
of
the
hinged
strip
of
aluminum
was
a
hole
or
slot.
When
this
strip
of
aluminum
was
pulled
down
to
a
position
perpendicular
to
the
bottom
of
the
percolator,
it
could
be
inserted
into
a
hole
or
slot
in
the
centre
of
the
top
of
a
small
hotplate,
of
about
the
same
diameter
as
the
percolator,
and
locked
in
that
position
by
means
of
a
rod
attached
to
a
projecting
knob
on
the
side
of
the
hotplate,
which,
when
pulled
outward,
allowed
the
hinged
aluminum
strip
to
be
inserted
and
when
then
pushed
forward,
engaged
the
hole
or
slot
in
the
bottom
of
the
same
and
the
two
parts
or
pieces,
viz.—the
aluminum
percolator
and
the
small
electric
hotplate,
were
then
fixed
or
fastened
together.
Samples
of
these
articles
were
filed
as
Exhibits
“B”
and
“3”.
According
to
the
testimony
of
Sigmund
Kaufman,
husband
of
the
defendant,
Emma
Wilhemina
Kaufman,
and
manager
of
the
business
carried
on
by
her
under
the
firm
name
and
style
of
Filtro
Products,
the
defendant
had,
for
some
time,
sold
these
two
articles
and
had
sent
out
invoices
for
large
numbers
of
the
same,
describing
them
as
so
many
electric
percolators
or.
percolator
and
hotplate
combinations,
4
‘Model
107’’.
Later,
the
defendant,
instead
of
invoicing
them
as
so
many
units,
made
one
invoice
for
a
number
of
percolators
and
another
for
the
same
number
of
hotplates—Exhibits
‘‘4’’
and
“4A”.
The
question
for
decision
is
whether
or
not
the
defendant
was
manufacturing
or
producing
electric
coffee
makers
in
the
sense
that
the
percolator
and
hotplate
combined
made
one
unit
or
manufacturing
percolators
as
separate
articles
and
hotplates
as
separate
articles.
The
Crown
contends
that
the
percolator
and
hotplate
together
was
an
electric
coffee
maker
and
therefore
subject
to
excise
tax.
The
defendant,
on
the
other
hand,
maintains
that
the
percolator
could
be
and
was,
on
some
occasions,
sold
separately
from
the
hotplate
and
that
no
excise
tax
was
payable
on
non-electric
percolators
and
that
she
also
sold
the
electric
hotplates
separately
and
no
excise
tax
was
payable
on
the
same.
Undoubtedly,
the
percolator,
with
the
hinged
strip
of
aluminum
turned
up
against
its
bottom,
could
be
used
as
a
nonelectric
percolator,
and,
undoubtedly,
the
hotplate
could
be
used
for
purposes
other
than
heating
water
and
making
coffee
in
the
percolator,
but
it
is
equally
certain
that
the
two
articles,
when
the
hinged
aluminum
strip
is
pulled
down
perpendicularly
to
the
bottom
of
the
percolator,
and
fixed
into
the
slot
in
the
centre
of
the
hotplate,
together
make
an
electric
appliance
adapted
to
household
or
apartment
use,
viz.—a
coffee
maker.
The
question
is
one
of
some
difficulty,
but
it
is
clear
that
the
two
articles,
viz.—the
percolator
and
the
electric
hotplate
were
designed
to
be
used
together
and
when
so
used,
each
is
a
component
part
of
an
electric
coffee
maker.
The
supplement
to
Murray’s
English
Dictionary,
published
in
1933,
the
original
of
which
was
published
in
1893,
gives
what
was
then
a
recent
meaning
of
the
word
‘
‘
component
’
’
as
follows:
“applied
specially
to
the
separate
parts
of
motor
cars
and
bicycles.
Hence
attributively
and
combined
as
component
maker,
component
built.
’
’
While
the
circumstances
provided
for
thereby
are
not
before
this
Court,
the
words
used
in
subsection
(8)
of
Section
80
of
chapter
179,
R.S.C.
1927,
as
amended,
now
Section
23(3),
R.S.C.
1952,
are
of
assistance:
“23.
(3)
The
tax
imposed
by
this
section
or
by
section
28
is
not
payable
in
the
case
of
goods
that
are
purchased
or
imported
by
a
manufacturer
licensed
under
this
Part
or
under
section
129
of
The
Excise
Act,
and
that
are
to
be
incorporated
into
and
form
a
constituent
or
component
part
of
an
article
or
product
that
is
subject
to
an
excise
tax
under
this
Part
or
to
an
excise
duty
under
The
Excise
Act.”
Even
if
the
electric
hotplates
in
question
were
manufactured
by
one
person
and
the
percolators
in
question
by
another,
but
both
for
a
third
person
who
sold
the
two
together,
it
would
follow
that
the
combination
sold
by
the
third
party
would
be
a
component
built
electric
coffee
maker.
While
the
acts
or
statements
of
the
defendant,
her
employees
and
purchasers
are
not
to
be
taken
as
interpretations
of
the
law,
when
words
in
common
use
are
contained
in
a
statute
such
acts
and
statements
are
some
evidence
of
their
accepted
meaning.
In
the
early
stages
of
the
manufacture
and
sale
of
the
combinations
in
question,
they
were
described
by
the
defendant
in
invoices,
as
already
stated,
as
electric
percolators,
and
an
advertisement
appearing
in
the
Oftawa
Journal,
Exhibit
“2”,
describes
the
combination
as
an
‘‘electric
coffee
maker’’,
which
is
further
evidence
of
the
common
use
of
the
words.
An
electrical
engineer
was
called
as
a
witness
by
the
defendant,
who
described
the
two
parts
of
the
combination
as
a
hotplate
and
a
percolator
and
who
stated
that
the
combination
was
not
an
electric
coffee
maker.
‘“The
testimony
of
experts
may
be
given
to
explain
the
meaning
of
technical,
local,
obsolete,
or
foreign
terms
.
.
.
but
not
of
ordinary
words
used
in
modern
statutes,
of
which
the
Court,
aided
where
necessary
by
dictionaries
and
other
literary
authorities,
will
take
judicial
notice.’’
Phipson
on
Evidence,
9th
edition,
page
682.
There
will
be
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
for
the
sum
of
$1,827.34
tax
and
$50.28,
the
penalty
imposed
by
the
statute,
together
with
interest
subsequent
to
the
30th
day
of
April,
1953,
and
prior
to
the
date
of
judgment
with
costs.
Judgment
accordingly.
Email this Content