Lord THANKERTON :—This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, ante, p. 197, which affirmed, with one dissentient, the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, ante, p.

Macdonald, C.J.B.C.:—This is an appeal raising a question involving the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament and that of the local Legislature. We have been informed by counsel that the Minister of Justice was notified of this appeal and replied that he did

Morrison, C.J.S.C.:—The question raised in this action is whether what is locally known as the Fuel-oil Tax Act, 1930 (B.C.), c. 71, and particularly secs. 2, 5(1) and 6 thereof, is invalid as being an attempt, in the first place, to

JUREMENT :—La défenderesse, s’autorisant des dispositions de de l’article 700, C.M., par règlement no 258, entré en vigeur le premier mai 1933, a imposé certains droits annuels, sous forme de licences, pour l’exercice des commerces et métiers, etc., dans les limites

Lor Macmillan:—The respondent, Mrs. Spooner, in the year 1927 received a sum of $9,570.41 in circumstances set out in

NEWCOMBE, J.:—This is a tax appeal, depending upon the meaning and application of the Income War Tax Act, c. 28 of 1917, as amended.

AUDETTE, J.:—This is an appeal, under the provisions of The Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereto, from the assessment of the appellant, for the year 1927, on her income received from the Vulcan Oils Ltd., in the

SMITH, J.:—On April 27, 1929, the appellant made a return of his income for the year ending December 31, 1928, which return contained the following entry under Clause 6:

‘‘Income from Dividends ***

AUDETTE, J.:—This is an appeal, under the provisions of The Income War Tax Act, 1917, R.S.C. 1927, c. 97, from the assessment of the appellant, for the year 1928, on that part of his income which he received from the

Durr, C.J.C. (delivering the judgment of the Court orally) :— This appeal arises out of a controversy concerning the assessment of the appellants to income tax in respect of a sum of $77,000 which, the Crown alleges, was a profit ‘‘of’’ the appellants