Hazen,
C.
J.
I
After
setting
out
the
Stated
Case
and
quoting
sec.
23
of
the
Income
War
Tax
Act]
:
In
the
case
of
The
King
v.
Limerick
Ex
Parte
Murphy
(1921),
49
N.B.R.
p.
280,
this
Court
decided
that
under
the
Inland
Revenue
Act,
e.
51,
R.S.C.
(1906),
being
an
Act
solely
and
exclusively
for
the
protection
and
benefit
of
the
revenue
of
Canada,
and
special
officers
being
named
and
provided
therein
to
enforce
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
officers
of
inland
revenue
and
they
only
can
enforce
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
it
is
impossible
to
distinguish
between
that
case
and
the
one
now
under
consideration.
In
the
Income
War
Tax-Act
as
in
the
Inland
Revenue
Act,
the
language
is
direct
and
clear,
and
I
am
therefore
of
the
opinion
that
in
the
cases
arising
under
the
Act
special
officers
of
the
Department,
and
they
only
can
enforce
the
provisions
thereof.
1
have
therefore
come
to
the
conclusion,
in
answer
to
the
first
question,
that
there
was
not
a
valid
information
laid
upon
which
the
conviction
could
be
based,
in
view
of
the
fact
that
T.
T.
Goodwin,
who
laid
the
information.
was
not
shown
to
have
been
authorized
to
lay
the
same,
and
under
such
circumstances
the
magistrate
did
not
have
jurisdiction
to
hear
the
information
or
try
the
accused
thereunder.
Having
come
to
this
conclusion
on
the
first
question,
the
result
of
which
is
to
sustain
the
accused
and
set
aside
the
conviction
before
the
magistrate,
I
do
not
think
it
necessary
to
deal
with
the
other
questions
submitted
by
the
magistrate
in
the
stated
case.
Appeal
allowed.
Email this Content