The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1870-01-20
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

of The People SIS. Owyhee Mining Compan
}. and Real Estate and improvements. The &C
ton was brought by the District Attorney 0
that District in behalf of the People, to recov
err the sum of 1924 90, taxes for the yea
1859, with five per cent. penalty under the pro
visions Of the Revenue Act passed at the las
session of the Legislature. Several defence,
were set up substantially as follows:
/. That the description Of the property 10 Insult
cient under the statute and hence there was no legal
assessment
situate is assessed and taxed and the land being the
property of the United States is exempt from taxa
| ton; the same being assessed in common with the
improvements. is illegal and makes void the assess
ment.
s. Fraud In the assessment by the assessor. in him
knowingly placing too high value on the property
and by the Board of Equalization i'll refusing to
duce and eQualize the assessment knowing at the
| time that the assessment was excessive.
Another reason why the assessment IL claimed to
be void 10 that the Real Estate is without the limits OF
any city or town. and il not described by metes and
bounds. nor 10 the number Of acres given, or the
Township where situate.
Judge Lewis devoted considerable attention
i'll the examination of the law of the case and
of authorities bearing upon the points raised.
which had been adjudcated by other Courts in
States where similar statutes prevailed, aud
while we have not had the time to examine in
to satisfy ourselves of the correctness of the
conclusions reached by his Honor, yet from the
authorities quoted in Judge Lewis opinion,
some OF which we have had access to, and
have examined, We are satisfied that under the
facts us presented in the Owyhee case, the de.
cision is correct. Judge Lewis shows that the !
description OF the defendants property rs con.
tanned in the assessment roll is sufficient as il |
complies substantially with the requirements OF
the Idaho Revenue Act, aud further quotes
New York and California decisions in support
Of that conclusion
As TO the second ground of defense, Judge
Lewis after referring TO California decisions,
md also to the case of Hale & Norcross Silver
Mining Co IS. Storey, et nj, Nevada. page
l0i, says: Il conclude that the land Ia the
Ease on trial was not assessed. but only the
'osscssory right and Improvements thereon" ,
lie refers 10 the case Of Wright IS Cradle Z
laugh, Sd Nevada, but says that the decision in /,
hat case in no way conflicts with the conclu- .
ions reached in the case q; bar IL
He disposes of the third ground of defense [,
y SAYING that the evidence IN the case failed Il
D establish fraud, either on the part of the As.
essor or Of the Board Of Equalization. and .
that u; law fraud must be proved" aud nc. !
ordlngly awarded judgment in favor If the y
laInt'h for the amount claimed The import. Il
nee OF this decision Will be nj once apparent, u
ON the fact that the course pursued by the =,
SCISSOR OF O"!hce county IN the assessment u
the property OF the Owy hce Mining Go. is n
e same pursued b! nearly every Assessor ia q
e Territory, and different, decision would !.
ave had the effect OF compl!cating matters to o,
ru'nous extent BY invalda;ing al assessments y,
real estate and improvements made by NIL
e Assessors who have followed the course a,
rsued by that officer in Owyhec county. IN
In the examination Of this case we will give - =.
ldge Lewis the credit of eyincing n proper 81
sPect for the judicial decisions OF n State in de
1ich the code, both civil and criminal. approx T.
ates nearer to the practice which prevails in ala
r Territory than that Of any other State In -
preaching the case in his opinion he uses the
lowing language ~
The action ia brought under tho provisions Of tho 81"
venue Act Of 1862 aud involves the question IA To sy
proper construction to be given TO certain pyov,s =
IL of the statute And our statute ia cepted al
IN that Of California. think much weight should u !
given to the rules adopted by the Supreme Court
that state in the construction Of their statute as 81
y "a that OF Nevada, which has q statute subs,Au. L.
u the same nv
There Is quite contrast between this Ian. Ac
age Of Judge Lewis and the course pursued pu
him IN giving weight to the decisions of the enc
lIfornia Supreme Court, and the course DUR apl
ID by that superannuated and egotistica old pet
who fills the position of Chief Justice with sha
nut as much learning and dignity as the Ro the
n Emperor's horse filled the position of ed,
me Minister. Noggle, G. j., in n case be. IN
0 him last fall, sneeringly referred to Cali. AID
1ia as the place where all the law for this gra
'ritOry seems to have been settled" and af pro
wards, or rather in the Chinese Tax case. the
speaking of legislative enactments. SAYS: had
hese Territorial laws to be a branch of Cali ten
las legal history. and Of a pernicous system of
station that certainly is not creditable to Amer ''
statesmen. com
wonderful censor! How grateful the peo. and