Owyhee tidal wave. [volume] (Silver City, Owyhee County, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1869-1870, 1870-01-13


K. Lewis, Of this District, in the csse OF the
Peorle VS. ouyhcs Mining Company, covers
the points involved in all the tax csses sub
mitied to the Court at the last tenn, we have
considered it Of sufficient interes; to give it
place in our columns, to the exclusion Of
the usual amount of local matter:
The People VS. Owyhce Mining CO and Real
Ests,s and lmprovements-In the District
Court of the Third Judicial District, for
Owyhee County.
This is an action brought TO recover 50, ga
20 taxes for the year 1869, with 5 per cent
penalty. under the provisions OF the Revenue
Act. OF 1SG2
There are several defrnscs set up, in sub
stance 20 follows:
l. That the d. Iiption of the property is
insufficient under the s,-tute, and hence
thrse was No lo.ai ,sSment.
? That the lrnd upon which the improve
menis are situate is T7.> cd and taxed, and
the land being the properly OF the United
STA ., is exempt from taxation /; the same
bong in Common with the improve
men. : llle e. AID mixes void the ass So
ment.
5. + rduu IL tue L -llNcpl Dy tIt u a l-Of,
in knowirs'y pi n. 10 high a yalIe on the
prns =, 4 by tie b ID OF 2 ins' zltion
in refusing 1. ucs ald oquslize TIC a-5caS-
ment, know , :. The t.me That the a7.cgs-
ment WIS exc i've.
Another why the assessment is
claimed - | : void is iat lie Rc,l "a 'e is
without e l4i.s oil ~ city vi TOM, and
is not DE- i = 4 by NJ and boindr, nor is
the num- Of st gwen or tie icvn1hp
where = p re.
This W. e-gl,d and submitts1, to-
| gcther~ wi ell. Others, involving the
same genc.. principles, and the decision in
| this &c, - TO lie isles OF c)nstruCtioa,
will be applicable 10 ALL Counsel have very
ably pr .nt, ! &c c'co and prefercd very
eiabcrs.s briss lac questions presented
are of much inteTss 20 the parties liiiga1t,
and have gwen the ca much cousidera-
ton, and have arrived at such conclusions
IS am of opinion are warranted by the law
| I'd frcts in the case, and which are satislac-
| tory to myself
The &C ion is broJ hit under the provisions
of the Revc1ue A. Of 1869, and involves the
| quesi on TO the pro, 81 construction TO be
| given to CT in nrovi. ons C the Iiute.
| And our .situts is copied from that OF
| California, ink much weight should be
| given to the i,'les lopted by the SUPP, me
Coui. of that Et1le in the construction Of
theirs tai :, &C well - that OF Nevada, which
| b. 5 81 tate substantially the s,me 1t is a
sue stiOn OF moment in the cs5e before US,
whether the law should be strictly construed
! or whether the construction should be lib
es.l A. seDc y rule the proceedings on
a sale for tar.s shculd be strictly construed,
and if the law has not blen exactly complied
| with, the -lCr are beld void; but | sppre-
| bend tho re reGron for this rule is bared on
| the idea tcat in siies for taxes the enact.
mems generally provide for such sales on
| constructive notice to the party in default,
| aud in is5t he has had no opportunity te
come in and " the taxes and prevent thu
| SHE, and ns a large amourr of property Is IL
general sold for trifie, Courts have been
| inclined to s.ritIy corstfde the acts aud
| proceedings for the pui, le.s OF protecting the
| rights OF tne party, WhD in fact hes never
| had an opportunity Of paying his asses
ments. II this be the recon for the rule, lei
| US apply the maxim that the rec on ceGsSag
| rs !! : =. q eec cs,'i aud in the case OF
| trial this rule of stiict construction cannot
| apply, for the patty defendant in this case
| has not. only had oppoi unity TO pay his
| taxes snd pI vent the Judgment and sale
but has had iull Opportunity 10 raise proper
| objections to his ment
In 9 Wheat 3s3. the rule Of construction
is thus a.at-l: IAN Interpretation mus
never be ADOPT which will defeat the eyi
dent puI 10 x of the law"
In O'G!aiy VS. BMnhisel. % Cal, 2S7, tn,
SUI rme CouIs y 1.-The act must b.
cons..ue with rel IL ICE TO the objects in
icnds 10 IL ecomp shed by it, and it viii
hardy be eli; med that pn inleTp. citation
which def sfs tlsis oi,'ect is admissible. i
is our duty 10 coz d lc The act in acc0rdfnc,
with the int ntion OF the lfaineIs OF 1t, ant
the lie OF h.. let construction c0ntendC1 fo
by counsel would be grossly mieppied i
used to defect that intention"
In TAYLOR VS. u s., 3 Howard, 1917, tn,
Conitsy; az Je.s.'s La clould be con
81 =, so : TO SO ;tua'ly accomplish the in
tsntion of their makers
And in the c.5. OF q. S. VS. Breed ct Al,
Sumner, l59, Justice Story says: "Recea0
| A. are not in the sense of the law penal
and are not theTeforefo be construed strictly
nor are they on the other hand, ats in fur
thersnce OF private rights and liberty, AM
therefore to be CO 5sTJed with extraordinarl
1 lbe-. lty. TIey s2e to be construed accord
ing 10 the se iasgoFt and meaning OF thei
terms, AID where he legislative intention
| as-ertaine :, LAT End hat only is to be gu
guild. in I'M =. reiins them"
1t seems clt then, to my mind, that tn
intent of the sislature was to provide rev
enue for the eIppo.. OF the government, AM
that OF the rsopel y should bear an equs
burdei and that IN making The as- e.'snen
the Off sheald abs anlially conform Il
the law. nit 20 property should be SO de
scribe TIL. G. b citizen might know ths
his pro- Y vs- S-g ssd the amount Of tn
?. .es slnsnt, sld tie iaxes, in order that b
might I We t'ie sa.le ius ,rscd II proper, an
then Day the -cs levied thereon II the
> his te the intent OF the legislature, tn
al we Iilcs - properly the guide OF tn
Cou.s IN col Iiirg tie law.
Firss, then, is the asse1sment IN the q
on ga su fcient-is the de ;rpiion OF th
properly suffie;elts