Increment value duty is charged annually, and not as a capital sum, where it is charged on minerals comprised in a mining lease or being worked. It is taken as the sum (if any) by which, in each year during which tho lease continues or the minerals aro being worked, as tho case may be, tho rental value on which mineral rights ditty is charged in respect of the right to work tho minerals exceeds tho annual equivalent of the original capital value of the minerals, or the capital value of tho minerals on the last preceding occasion on which increment value duty has been collected otherwise than $.8 an annual duty, if increment value duty has been HO collected before the minerals have become comprised in a mining lea,se or have commenced to be worked. The annual equivalent of any such capital value of the minerals is to be two twent y-fifth parts of that capital value.
If in any case the rental value on which tho mineral rights duty is charged represents in part a return for money expended within fifteen years by a, lessor in boring or otherwise proving the minerals, the rental value will be reduced for tho purposes of the collection of increment value duty by the amount which represents that return. In crement value duty payable annually is recoverable in the same manner as mineral rights duty, with the same right of deduction. Payment of increment value duty as above entitles the proprietor or lesaor to relief in any year from mineral rights duty, as such proprietor or lessor, up to the amount paid by him in that year in respect of increment value duty. A deduction from rent is equivalent to a payment by a lessor. Where minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease or to be worked, their capital value at the time will be specially ascertained, and that capital value will be treated as the original capital value of tho minerals. And Bee Land Values Duties.
°I Void Contraote.—By the Money-Lenders Act of 1900 a contract with a money-lender, in respect of a money-lending transaction, was rendered illegal and void as against tho money-londer, as we have already seen, if the monoy-lender had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the Act, e.g., had entered into the contract in a name other than that registered by him under the Act. So the law stands to-day. But it was held by the Courts, in 1910, that the contract would bo equally illegal and void as against an assignee thereof, though he may have taken the assign ment without notice of the circumstances giving rise to its illegality. So an assignee of such securities, though for value and without notice, WSB in no better position than the actual money-lender and could obtain no benefit from the securities. in practice it WEIS
soon discovered that this interpret;ition of tne law was inevitably not only the cause of great hardship to innocent assignees, but tended unreasonably to restrict and imperil any sort of bona fide dealings with securities which may have had their genesis with money-knders in respect of money-lending transactions. This state of affairs was remedied by an amending now Monoy-Lenders Act--that of 1911. By that statute it was enacted that—(a) any agreement with, or security taken by, a money-lender shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, valid in favour of any bona fide assignee or holder for value without notice of any defect due to the operation of Section 2 of the Act of 1900, and of any person deriving title under him ; and (b) any payment or transfer of monoy or property made bona fide by any person (sce below under Notice) mtlether acting in a fiduciary capacity or otherwise, on tho faith of the validity of any such agree ment or security, without notice of any such defeet, shall, in favour of that person, be, and bo deemed to bo always to have been, as valid as it v,•ould have been if the agree ment or security had been valid. But in eitiv,r of these cases the money-lender is liable to indemnify the borrower or any other person who is prejudiced by virtue of this enact ment of tho statute of 1011. And nothing in such enactment renders valid. an agree ment or security in favour of an assignee or holder for value who is himself a money lender.
.Notice.—A perusal of the abovo shows that in order that an assignee may obtain the advantage conceded by the statute ho must have taken his assignment without notice of any defect in the contract, e.g. that tho money-lender was unregistered. Whether or no he will bo held to have had such notice depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. It may be that ho will bo fastened with constructive notice. It is important therefore to deal carefully with this question of constructive notice, for where there is express notice no real difficulty can arise. In the first place it should be noted that he will not be deemed to have had notice of a defect in an agreement or security by reason only that a search in the monoy-lenders' Register would have disclosed the defect, or shown that the agreement or security was effected with a money-londer. This is an express provision of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1911.