The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-03-15
COURT OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
March eth. TIN and 9Th. e2q1


ofis Q. Nelson complainant VS.. Inhabitants
OF new Gloucester. This was an application
Tor abatement of the complainant's taxes for
1865, both money and highway. The com
plainant alleged that he was overtaxed on
money and money at interest,"" "stock in
trade" "real estate" and "swine.n
AS early as April 9th the complainant gave
in his valuation to one of the Assessors, who
took it down in writing and the complainant
offered to make oath TO it, but the oath was
not administered. The complainant gave in
"S179.00 in money and no money at INTEREST,"
mo stock in trade" and mo swine." In Sep
TENDER, 1864, the town was in want of money
and the complainant furnished $1,000, and took
the note OF the town. running to himself. The
Assessor who took the compliments valua-
ton inquired of the complainant, who owned
said note, and to whom he let it 60. Mr.. Mel
son said he had no money at interest except
what was invested in u. s. bonds, and EXEMPT
from taxation; that he did not own the $1,000
note and did not know who did, and refused
to say to whom he transferred it, The Asses
sors taxed him for $1,000, "money and money
at interest" The Assessor inquired of Mr..
Nelson how much vinegar he had He said
he had about 20 barrels of cider-yinegar in
the process of changing; that it was not worth
more than 500; that full three quarters of it
was made from apples raised on his own farm:
and he denied that it was taxable as Hstock in
trade" The Assessors taxed him for "stOck
In trade" $4,000, and for one swine, which he
did not have, valued at $1,000. He also claim
ed that the Assessors had valued his farm 81
200 too high in proportion to other iarms
The complainant made application for an
abatement on his taxes, June II, 1865. The
Assessors decided so far as the money tax was
concerned they would abate his tax ON the
swine, and they refused to make any abate-
ment o. his tax on money and money at in
terest." Mr.. Nelson appealed. He told the
assessors that if they would abate his tax on
the "money and money at interest" he would
waive his claim to an appeal as to the tax on
real estate; but otherwise he should appeal on
the whole. AS to the stock in trade, thew told
him they would go and look at his VINEGAR.
which they did. L ey subsequently sent him
and order of abatement for the money tax ON
500, of "s,ock in trade" and on the SIG for
Swine !" but no order of abatement on his
road taxes. This order was accepted IN part
only.
&c the trial it was proved by the complain
ant and Hanson Bailey, that the $1,000 was
handed to said complainant to be invested in
the town note, which the complainant did, and
at the first opportunity delivered the note to
said Bailey; that the complainant never own
ed anything in the note nor money. This evil
dence was uncontradicted. Hereupon the
compliments counsel insists he is entitled to
an abatement OF his money tax on the daft T.
ence between $1,000, "money and money at in
terest." and the money he actually had.
I'd. The compliments counsel insisted said
Nelson could not be taxed for "stock in trade
for the $500 worth of cider ma e from apples
raised on his farm, but only for the $500
worth made from apples he purchased.
While the evidence was given in and before
it was closed, no person had testified that any
abatement had been made on the road tax
The complainant claimed abatement of road
tax, on the swine, on the money at interest,
and on S275, stock in trade. One of the As
SCISSORS testified next morning, just before the
arguments were commenced, that a few
months later, not fixing the time, they sent to
the road surveyor an order of abatement Of
the road tax on the swine and 5000, astock
trade" The complainant testified he never
saw such order; but that on the Goth of Feb
fuary, 1866, the road surveyor notified him he
had received such an order the week before.
This being long after the process was served,
the counsel for complainant insisted it was too
late. With regard to the real estate, there
were contrary opinions among the witnesses.
Decision TO be given April Sd.
Woodman for complainant; Vnton for re-
spOndent