The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-01-13
Important Decision and Opinion In relatio
TO CITY Taxes.
SUPREME CouRr-sPEcIAL TERN.

Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt
JAN IL In re the Pdstor Of Trinity Church the Mayor
Of Neo York-Ihe statute in relation TO the
and collection Of taxes r. ss declares that every
ns os
ground between Hudson lie Roy, and GARRISON Streets
Trinity Church. within the terms OF the exemption
Having paid the tar under protest-comp ulsory, rs
sent suit TO recover back the amount-se7l is with
averIing IN their complaint that to the nine
lots on Hudson street they were set apart
and devoted . situation for builang for public
ship, to Re erected BY the Plaintiffs and that as to
the other four, they appropriated for the uses
chapel erected for religious services at intement, y
ard insiftng under this statement, that the whole
pr.mites wer. exempt from taxation. This simple
branch Of the claim. 1t Is too clear for argument,
that's contemplated structure resting merely in imagna
ton stone OF which has baen laid, ex.
racted from its primitive quarry Is not such building
for public worship is pound 20 see When
the law TO notice it, Az yet It is merely spiritual
msniiestaten, situated Lowbere-certainly not in the
nire LOTS" and visible only to the eye Of the mnd
indeed, it te visible distncty, even to that The law
to warrant the claim Of privilege, requires an actual
buildings house made with hands-not eternal in
!. lots"-r.stirg not on intention, however pous or
praisewofthy, but solid. subiunary earth. As to
they Are actually devoted +, the purposes Of osetsry
Now cemsteries such, except in the o! cemetery
associations formed under the geoers Law, are not eI
chapel confer the prvileeef Sach bueips, It Is obv
ous, is incident to the cemetery l; erected
not In the OF the statute place Of public
worship" but in the very language Of this complaint
"for religious services Ut interments AL religious
vices doubt sfs partake Of the nature Of
hgious worship; but all are not "pubic worship !"
primarily, II no. exclusively, to church services
asnersIy Upon any other Interpretation Of the terms
q legal Expressions there would be limit the
cepsns which might be claimed under them. Suppose
a in
sign particular room In his house. necessary, his
whos house. for religious services 1T intsrmsnts d single
women In the grave OF mAtr srragc II b said
ths burial OF the separate Of the sex-would
such dsvoon OF the premises however sAered ipso fac
CONVEX, the parsons dwst into "a building for pub
c Worship" aud exempt It, and AL the lots however
which IL might be situated from all secular
isAAon' By the words Of the statute 1t will Be observ
sd that the lets forming ths situation o the church.
exempted g, and soley because they are an ap-
purfenspce TO the budins; whereas by the interprs
tAticn ccrtensed for BY counsel the buildrs in the
prssent case called chapel is sought to be exempt
ed although, like the keepers lodge, . mere appurte-
arsun emit, while il admits that the semstery, as =
principal IL not exempt, virtually ssserts that the
oemetsry chapel, the mere incident is exempt, and
Of Its pson carries with II the cemetery also.
such mode OF reasoning a. IL seems to me IL unsound
in ITSELF and clearly at varan also with the policy Of
the statute At all events the with whom Ii
taIston question originated had Jurisdiction OF the
subject The property assessed real estate within their
wsd was primd face At ell events the oper snbjcct
Of assessment; and having inserted their rolls and
given due notice calling for ebjectons they had sht to
expect and to require that any special exemption was
claimed 1t should be presented and proved TO enable
them 70 pass upon m truth and legality Tbs ASSESSORS
In such oaes made BY Law the tribunal Of hrs In
| stance with an appeal to the Tax Commissioner and
then the Supervisors Of the county and perhaps also
by croor;, TO the supreme Court, Although possessed
OF only limited jurifdicton their action s still uaioiai
and csnnt and ought not TO be reviewed coatsrally
and especially in favor OF persons who for augh
that appears raised no objections at the tine vher
| thsy might, and were invited to do The o.
Madame Cbegay's school, on Union square recently
decided by ths Court Of Appeals, Il Sslisns Rsp, 376
| In which Q similar exemption claimed In fsvo
OF her extsntive esta oshment, as "buiing erectst
/ for the OF . seminary OF learning was decided
mainly this fround. (see also Barb l3S also 1s7
leees on the few however deserving, At the expense
the many and 10 the pref adce OF ths equal OF tn
general tex payer, TO be construed strictly. Tue
e not to BE- extended either by implication By ssrs
construction Ny conclusion i that the taxes In qiss
tcn wes properly levied; that, At all evsns, hAvio
bar sss a. ruhcat Obi 5ti3a o. spps.' sth'ugl pt