Scotland, the interest by the terms of the mortgages being made payable there. It does not pass either through his hands or through the bank account here.

It appears to me that, as to the fourteen thousand dollars, it is money which is in the possession of an agent in the Province (the Bank) for the owner (the company)—a person within the meaning of section 11, non-resident within this Province, and this sum, if the property of a non-resident private individual, would be clearly assessable. Does the fact of the owner being a corporation make any difference?

Section 39 directs that "the personal property of an incorporated company" (other than certain companies mentioned in the section inapplicable to the appellants) "shall be "assessed against the company in the same manner as if the company were an unincor"porated company or a partnership"

By section 40 a partnership is to be assessed at "the usual place of business of the partnership." The chief place of business in this Province of the appellants is in Toronto. Under the Insurance Act it is considered the chief agency of the Province, and for all ordinary incidents, such as serving of writs, notices, etc., it is to be treated as the head office. It is, therefore, I think, "the usual place of business" of the company in this Province, as defined by section 40. A branch situate outside the Province is not within the contemplation of the second sub-section of section 40. Property outside the Province is not assessable. It is not suggested that the appellants have any other place of business or branches in this Province, hence the office in Toronto is the usual place of business of the company. From this it is clear that the company can be assessed on its personal property held in Toronto, and personal property in the interpretation clause, section 2, subsection 10, includes interest upon mortgages, income, etc, etc.

In the City of Kingston vs. Canada Life, Boyd C. said that he was of the opinion that income, as an intangible, an invisible entity, was not to be read into sections 35 and 36 (now sections 40 and 41), and that income was not an item to be included in the expression personal property used in those sections, that the words personal property as used in those sections did not have the comprehensive and inclusive meaning attributed to them in the interpretation clause. This opinion, however, was expressed upon the facts of the case before the Court. In that case the City of Kingston had sought to assess a domestic life company, having its head office in this Province, for income alleged to have been earned at a branch office of the company at Kingston, a place also within the Province.

The Phoenix Insurance Co. vs. City of Kingston, 7 Ont. 343, and re North of Scotland Mortgage Company, 31 U.C, C.P. 552, are two cases in our own Courts relating to the assessment of foreign companies. The Phoenix Insurance Co. had a head office for the Canadian business in Montreal with a branch office in Kingston, and in the North of Scotland Mortgage Company case it appeared that its only agency in Canada was at Toronto. Both companies were held liable to be assessed on their income earned at Kingston and Toronto respectively.

I cannot distinguish the present case from these decisions which appear to determine the matter, unless their authority is shaken by the case of City of Kingston vs. Canada Life, 19 Ont. 453. Neither of the above cases appear to have been cited to the Divisional Court pronouncing judgment in the Canada Life case, nor are they alluded to in the judgment of Boyd, C., who delivered the judgment of the Court. It may be that, because

they related to the case of foreign companies they were not d emed to be in point as affecting the status of a local or domestic company. I think that the decision in the case of Kingston vs. Canada Life must be confined in its application to cases of domestic or home companies having their head offices within the Province.

I take it that if the Edinburgh Life Company or any private individual, a nonresident, had a sum of money on deposit in a bank in this Province, and the assessor discovered it, and assessed it as personal property, the assessment would be legal and proper. Here the assessor has assessed interest derived from mortgage placed upon real estate and situate in Toronto, and this interest has be n deposited in a bank in this Province to the credit of the company. The amount has been called income upon the assessment roll. Can it make any difference in the case of a non-resident what you call the fund? The definition of personal property in the statute includes income, and it is immaterial to the company whether these particular funds are assessed as personal property or as income, provided they are subject to assessment at all. If necessary, as upon an appeal the whole assessment is open, I would make any amendment of the assessment neces

sary, Sec. 71, sub.-s. 20. I do not think, however, that the interest on mortgages, the principal and interest of which are made payable by the terms of the contract in England or Scotland, and where, in compliance with this contract, the mortgagors remit their interest directly to the company, can be assessed here as personal property, because it is not received by the company, or any agent for them, in this Province. I think such moneys are not assessable at all as personal property, or as income in this municipality. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed so far as the validity of the assessment is questioned but the amount of the assessment, $19,600, will be reduced to fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) being the interest earned upon Toronto mortgages, and which interest it appears has been paid to the company in Toronto or into a bank at Toronto, and placed to their credit.

TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS AS TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS OF
THE CITY OF TORONTO FOR 1901.

BILL INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATURE IN 1895 TO PROVIDE FOR LOCAL
OPTION IN REGARD TO TAXATION.

BILL.

An Act to Amend the Assessment Act.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. Notwithstanding anything, in The Consolidated Assessment Act, 1892, contained, any municipal corporation may change, reduce or abolish the assessment for taxation of all buildings and improvements on real estate, stocks of merchandize, machinery, personalty and income, or may assess for taxation any or all of such classes of property.

2. The powers conferred by section 1 of this Act may be exercised : (a) By a by-law enacted by the municipal council, or

(b) By a vote of the nunicipal electors, when the proceedings to be taken shall be as follows:

(1) A petition signed by one-tenth of the electors of the municipality shall be presented before the 15th of November in any year to the council asking that the question of imposition, reduction or abolition of the assessment of any of the classes of property mentioned in section 1 of this Act be submitted to a vote of the electors, and the council shall submit such question at the next following municipal election; and the persons qualified to vote thereon shall be those qualified to vote at such elections, and if a majority of the votes cast be in favour of such reduction or abolition the council shall forthwith adopt and carry into effect the decision of such majority.

(2) The provisions of The Consolidated Municipal Act, 1892, relating to the submissions of by-laws to the ratepayers shall, save where inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply mutatis mutandis to the submissions of the said questions.

No. 22.

(Referred to pp. 284 and 349.)

MEMORANDUM FROM THE ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT, TORONTO, RESPECTING
TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The Dominion Government have paid for the asphalt pavement or the lane off Toronto street surrounding the Inland Revenue building. This was commuted on June 23rd, 1898; balance, $534 29.

The Dominion Government have practically agreed to pay for the roadway on the lane between Front street and Esplanade street. The pavement is not laid, but will be in the spring, it having passed the Court of Revision, etc. (See accompanying letters.)

The Ontario Government have paid for the asphalt pavement on Adelaide street opposite the old Upper Canada College grounds, $1,278 per annum-all paid to date.

The Toronto University paid for the asphalt pavement on Hoskin avenue and Devonshire place in all about $19,000.

The county of York were assessed for their property on Adelaide street (the old Court House), asphalt pavement. In Mr. Caswell's hands to sue for payment.

G. H. RUST, City Engineer, Toronto.

(Copy.)

Ottawa, October 17th, 1899.

My Dear Sir, I must apologise for not having answered your letter of October 6th, in reference to the lane south of Front St. We have no money in the estimates to pay our share of the pavement, but there is no doubt whatever that we are bound to contribute in the ordinary way. It follows that during the next session of Parliament I will certainly apply for the $2,935 which represents the Government's share in the work. Hoping this will be found satisfactory,

I beg to remain

(Copy.)

Yours truly, (Signed)

J. ISRAEL TARTE.

Ottawa, March 10th, 1900.

Sir, The question has arisen as to what material should be used in paving the lane or drive way in the vicinity of the Custom House and Examining Warehouse, Toronto, and I have been requested to state that the Department has decided that the best material for the purpose would be scoria blocks. I have not yet, however, received authority to proceed with the work. I have the honour to be, sir,

The City Engineer, Toronto.

Your obedient servant,
(Signed)

D. EWART,

Chief Architect.

No. 23.

(Referred to p. 407.)

STATEMENT SHOWING ASSESSMENTS AND AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID FOR THE YEAR 1899 ON THE PROPERTY OF THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO.