Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1858-11-24
IN SUPREME COURT.
Thompson, pl',F in error Chase, def'ti in error
Common Pleas of Clearfcld County.
OpI,SIoN nE rHE GnrRr BY IunMPsnN. j.

| the obscurity or rather darkness, which sur
rounds it. The dim light shed upon it, by the
paper books, relieves us but little from the ne
| cessity of laborious scrutiny TO discover the
| true nature of the controversy. Nor does the
| charge of the Court below aid US. The Court
| gave no reasons for their conclusions, and as
neither party submitted any points, We are to
| measure the charge. by general principles,
without Knowing whether there was anything
| exceptional in tee case not.
1. First then, as to the bills of exception to
| the reception of evidence. The books of the
Commissioners office having been produced
and proved by the proper custodian, 1T was
certainly competent for the opposite party to
call and examine a former clerk to explain en-
| tries made therein by himself while he was the
keeper of them. These books, although evil
dence, are not records imparting absolute nice
| ty, but may be explained. There was no er-
| ror in the ruling on this point.
The witness Bowman, stood clear of any such
interest in the controversy as would exclude
him from testifying. The verdict and judg
ment could never be evidence for or against
him. Besides, any interest he may have had,
he had previously to the trial transferred to a
stranger to the controversy. He was rightly
admitted to give evidence.
,. Errors assigned to the charge of theCourt.
FheCourt charged that ssthe plaintiff had shown
no such assessment as is required under our
acts of assembly to warrant saie'' and direc-
ted a verdict for defendant Why so?
The books of theConmisSiOner's office show
ed the land regularly assessed and the amount
carried out against it as unseated for the years
for which it was sold. This with the TreaSu-
rer's deed was all that was necessary to be
shown to establish prima facia case for the
plaintiff. These books are expressly ade ev-
ldence of the assessment of taxes by the act
of the 18th April, 1912. They were so, how
ever, before the passage of that act.
Was there anything in the paroi testimony
n inpnntrovprtiblv HapiSiya tn
the case thus made, and to call for a binding
direction, that the assessments were void
There may be cases, in which the facts proved
are so indisputable, that judge may be JUS
| tifiable in treating them as ascertaiHed tbingg
yet the jury must nevertheless pass upon them
| but here, If there was any materiallty in the
evidence, which we do not perceive. the bind
| ing direction was wrong; it was for the jury.
| If there was nothing, the direction was wrong
| for the reason that the assessments, evil
denced by the books stood good and solid and
! the charge should have been the other way,
as to that matter.
1t appears from the parol testimony that af-
ter the lst of January, 1916, and within that
month, as we would infer, the taxes due and
assessed upon the land for the years 1S45-46
were transferred to the unseated list by order
of the Commissioners by entry on the asses
sor's duplicate and for those and the taxes of
1S41, the land was sold in June 1SfS. IL there
be any standard for the accurate assessment of
land which is unseated, and this proceeding
was not according to it, the departure from ii
was but an irregularity at most, which would
not invalidate the sale. The quality of the
| land was designated, the amount due was ac-
| curately carried out and had been due for
more than year before the sale-this consti
| tUted good foundation fora valid sale.
In Russell VS.. WerntZ, "a State Rep. 331 +,
and in Laird Heister, same book 453 it is
settled if it had not been before, that when
! land is indscriminately assessed, seated and
unseated, in the same duplicate, and the tax
has remained due and unpaid for more than
year-Such land, if unseated, may be placed
on the list of unseated lands and sold, without
having been such list for ssone whole year,
and if the land was in part unseated the title
viii be good. The advertisement ard sale un-
der the act of 1915, must be of unseated lands
and then title will depend solely upon the facts,
of whether the land was unseated, and whcth-
er tax regularly or irregularly assessed, had
been due year before the sale. Taxes due
year-land unseated and sold, are the essen
tials to title. The act of 1912 but declared
what the law had been adjudicated before, that
the books of assessment of taxes in the office
are evidence of assessment. 1t is the books
we have to do with and not the form or man.
ner in which they kept, and this was dis
tinctly held in Laird VS.. Heister, (snpra-)
There are cases however, in which the Com
missioners may impose the tax, as when the
Iduu IS returned DE tUc COu0Iy surveyor anu
not otherwise assessed, or when fourfold tax
IS imposed. In such cases it must be designa-
ted as unseated, and cannot be included in the
sale list, until one year after such assessment,
as in other cases.
But there are cases in the books such as
Lowman VS.. M'Call, W. & S. 133. Milliken
VS.. Benedict, State Rep. 169. Common
wealth VS.. Woodside, II TO- 4O4, and perhaps
one or two others, in which notice TO the own
er of the transfer from the seated to the un-
seated list, when practicable, was required In
order to render the sales valid. There are ex-
ceptional cases, as was said in Laird VS.. Hes-
ter, resting npon a supposed arrangement be-
tween the taxing officers and the owners, that
the land was treated as seated, and the tax col
lected as if such was the case, without discus
sing the wisdom or propriety of making or re-
cognizing such arrangements, or mpugning
their soundness at this time, we say the doc
trine is only applicable to state of facts in
which such arrangement Is apparent-to no
other. We leave owners to take notice that
their lands are unseated if they are so, and if
they do not pay their taxes they cannot COM
plain if they sold. AS there was no ar
rangement pretended to bring this case within
the exceptional cases, the owner in fact, not
being party to the suit, nor any one claiming
under him, the doctrine would furnish no
ground for the charge of the Court.
As the case stands, therefore. on the assess
ments and sale it was for the piaihtii' io- any
thing we can discover. But there were other
grounds of defence which if established would
avail the defendants. They must only be al
lowed TO accomplish this result however, ac-
cording to the rules of law and practice of the
Courts. If dependant on facts they must be
submitted to the jury, The court cannot de-
termine them. We learn from the paper book
of the defendant, that he claimed that the land
was in fact seated during the years for the
taxes Of which it was sold. Also that upon