The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-05-07

1
mand made BY publication for the taxes to be
paid within sixty days. Not being paid within
that time on the 10th of January 1885, this lot OF
land with many others, .-rtised to be
ssld, the advertisement being published in the
"New South" a paper at that time published
in Beaufort. The lot was therein described as
above stated, with the taxes and penalty given.
This publication was continued through four
successive weeks, and the same notice was posted
up In four public places throughout the Town and
Parish Of Beaufort and st. Helena This notice
informed the people that the commissioners would
proceed, on the 11th February, 1883, to sell the
land In question. In accordance with this adVer-
| tisement, the commissioners opened their sales,
and on the first day sold other let's, then adjourn
ed from day to day, until the 18th Of March, 1858
when they sold "Lot E, Block 6l." 1t was bid in
| by the government for sl25 the United States
being the highest bidder. Subsequent to the sale
| on the 18th OF March, 1856, certificate OF sale
was made out to the United States, but was signed
| by two of the three commissioners. The certid-
cate was admitted by the court, but subsequently
ruled out Of the case and declared to be no valid
certificate, as 1t was signed by only two commis-
sioners.
The general questions raised BY counsel for
plaintiff were
First. That the act Of 1882 did not apply to the
Town OF Beaufort, because at the time 1t was
passed the Government OF the United States had
possession of Beaufort, and the civil officers Of
the government provided for in the direct tax
act Of 1851 could execute that law.
Second. That the act Of 1862 was unconstitu-
| tional and void, because 1t took away the pro-
perty Of the citizen without due process OF law.
Third That the commissioners, II the act was
valid, did not comply with the provisions OF the
act, and hence the sale was void.
On the other hand, 1t was contended by Mr..
Corbln, for the government
First. That the act Of June 7th, 1852, applied
strictly to the Town OF Beaufort and Parish OF St.
Helena, and that the direct tax commissioners
were authorized to proceed as they did, to value
the land and lay and collect taxes thereon, under
the provisions Of the Law.
Second. That the act Of 1852 is constitutional;
that the selling or forfeitipg the lands for nom
payment of taxes pursuant to the provisions OF
the tax act is not depriving citizen Of property
without due process Of law, or contrary to the,
law Of the land.
Third. 1t was insisted that the tax COM
mlssioners had compiled strictly with the terms
of the law in valuing and assessing tax, giving
notice thereof, and OF the sale for the non.pay-
ment Of taxes, and the selling OF the lot.
AS to the notice published OF the assessment
Of the tax, and OF the sale to take place for non
payment Of tax, 1t was contended on the part
Of plaintiffs counsel, that it was defective, In
that 1t did not describe the land in such manner
as would notify the owner that her lands were
about to be sold; in other words, TINT the notice
saying that 'Lot E, Block 81, in the Town Of
Beaufort, Parish ofSt Helena, Beaufort District,
State Of South Carolina quota Of tax $50, penalty
S2S, amount to ss4, would be sold," was net such
q notice as the law requires.
On the part OF defence 1t was insisted, upon
this point, that the statute required the commits
sIoners to give 80 description" OF the land to be
sold, and that the true meaning Of the statute
was, that they should give certain description,
and not any particular description, such as re-
ference to the name Of Mrs. 0'Connor, and the
metes and bounds of the land to be sold; but that
II the notice had reference to certain piece or
parcel OF land, which could be ascertatned with
out any doubt or uncertainty, then the sescrip-
tisn and notice were sufficient, and the commits
sloners, in giving such notice, had complied with
the law.
Ills Honor Judge Bryan delivered very full
and elaborate charge to the jury covering all the
points In the case, but which, we regret to say,
our space does not enable to publish in full His
Honor ruled substantially upon the points made
by the several counsel.
First. That the act Of 1862 was Tax act,
passed specially to meet the exlgencies then ex-
isting In the Southern States, namely-the States
then charged with being in insurrection and re-
belllon, and that 1t had strict application to the
Town OF Beaufort and Parish OF st. Helena, In
South Carolina.
Second. That as Tax act its provisions were
constitutional; that such provisions were to be
found in the Tax acts Of largo number Of States
ia the Union, and had been held by those States
to be valid; that 1t was no new thing for Congress
to provide that lands should be forfeited for non
payment of taxes levied thereon; that the due Oh.
sevance of the provisions Of such laws BY the ehi-
GERS created to execute them would eL--t an ab-
solute change Of title from the original owner to
the government.
Third. His Honor ruled as matter Of law, that
the description Of property in question, given IN
the advertisement published In the "NeW Soath,'
paper published in Beaufort at the time, where
In the lot Of land In question was described simply
as slot E, in Block 61," was defective, and not
such notice as was required by law; that the de-
scription should have been such that, the
original ewner seeing it, would have been In
formed that her lands were to be sold for non
payment Of taxes; that this description was de.
fectIve, In that 1t did not convey this informa.
ton.
The jury Or. ". 5. Henerey, foreuan) retired,
and after an absence OF about fifteen minutes, re.
turned with the following verdict: "We find the
within described premises, to wit: The lot
Of land in the Town of Beaufort s. c.,
bounded on the north by Bay street, on the
south by the river, aud east and west by other
lands Of the plaintiff, measuring in width on Bay
street slxty.fve 1857 feet, and in depth one hun
dred and seventy-nve p75) feet, together with The
buildings Of brick and wood thereon, to be the
property Of the plaintiff, and we assess her
damages for the use profits and injuries at sseoo"
THERE'S alarge amount Of property af1ecued by
this decision, and we doubt not that there will be
still numerous cases of this character In the
l United States Court.