The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-02-23
Tho Taxes and .our Courts Of Justice

Mn. EDIToP-Sir II am q foreigner, q subject Of
His Hawaiian Majesty, and resident in one Of the
country districts Of Oahu, where l Own two tracts
Of Iand-one containing 1913 acres, the other contain
ing about COO acres, and within the latter two kule-
anas, which have become mine by purchase. The
former Of the two pieces lies upon the mountain side, is
rough, stony, woody, and without Improvement l
bought it for the poorest quality Of land-it is such
to my use, and if sold would bring a corresponding
price. IL was assessed at 5000, which Is equal 10
eleven dollars per acre. The other piece i up to the
average Of our land III this district, and was assessed
at %1GOO-equal to TWO and twO-third dollars per
acre. l have, during the year, sold a piece along
side, and Of simillr character, for 81 - per acre.
the two kuleanas. which are now merged again into
the tract from which they were formerly reserved
Ohough paid for 10y the acre with the rest Of the
piece) by re-purchase. were in like-manner twice
taxed-once in the 600 acres, and again separately
a. kulcanas. The assessment was made by one only
Of the two assessors, without the all Of the judg-
ment of his associate, and 50 without opportunity Of Il
disagreement between them, and Of reference to the
school treasurer as umpire (sec. 400.
Thinking that the assessment was irregular in
mode, and excessive in amount, and being unwilling
that it should be made a rule for oil future assess
ments Of my property, | enquired Of our Minister Of
Finance my remedy. He told me that it would be in
an action before the District Justice. Accordingly |
was cited there at the suit Of the Tax-Collector judg-
men. was given against me Paying the costs Of
court and of appeal, l brought my case before the
Hon. J. Kaptna, Circuit Judge at Chambers, and
employed "a lawyer to represent me-. The foreigner
Of the two assessors testified that the assessment Of
my property was made without his assistance, and
solely by his associate. The foreign assessor Is a
resident of our district, and is well informed of the
price and value Of land there, and Is Il man of sound
Judgment. He was asked what was the value of my
land. lie estimated the mountain tract, as described
10y the other assessor in his testimony, being rough,
stony and wooded, and as he personally knew it to be,
to be worth not oyer one and n half to two dollars
per acre, and the lower tract not far from the same
value. The kuleanas were proved by deed and by
testimony of witnesses to be within the tract of GOO
acres.
Upon this showing it was argued, first, that there
had been no assessment, for the words of the law are
that it shall be made by the assessors together, Jointly,
Iaua, as the native version has it, and to the native
version only that court looked, and that the inten-
ton Of the Legislature in appointing two assessors,
instead of one enumerator was. that property should
be assessed = or valued by the Judgment ofat least two
minds, an intention that would he completely trUs-
trated if the assessors could Of their own motion
divide the district between them, and each separately
undertaking half, approve by wholesale of the others
assessment, 10 make their business easy and expedi-
tious, and that if there had been no assessment there
could be no taxation, ut least Of property not subject
to specific taxes, such as horses and dogs, which may
be included by the collector, even if wholly omitted
by the assessors. Secondly, that some acres We're
con fesse1ly taxed twice oyer-once included in the
large piece Of land. and again as kuieanas. And
thirdly, (what was a Plain proof Of the wisdom Of tue
law, that the ap~praisemeut Of property should
he on the judgment Of two mem the valuation
Of my property by the assessor who knew best about
its value, was but a fifth or less of the rate entered
by his associate.
To this the TaN-CoUector answered what had he 70 do with
IL, here was the a-s.s-meut-run delivered TO him Il was his
business to collect IL fthe assessors hti made a mistake, il
vas uO mistake % hi, the dWDuHi ought not to be the loser
Of the tax and of the costs 81 court. And :" Nr. haueua gave
his judgment for the fl. amount ON the assessors roll, the dU-
2icity tax and all. with costs Ey this attempt, amicahly and
quietly. 10 rectfy a mistake and a wrong, | am . louser by SD,
which u mere than the whole amount of my tNcs-
Now my question. MIR. Editor. j. this. II there i a simple,
Inexpensive and feasible remedy for an Irregular and excessive
assessment. U-herc - II Yours truly.
A PAYER o. TAXES ASD COSTS.