Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1879-02-05
MR. FIELDING STATES ms
CASE.


10 Wnul uclicNcu 10 uc un eTlpuopus
and unlawful assessment on this Coun.
" by the Revenue Commissioners Of
the State. After sonc discussion they
concluded to allow me one. half of ali
could gain for the county, with the
condition that should be liable for all
costs and other expenses II the case
went against the county.
Aided by able and experienced coun
sci, who never agree TO work without
pay, proceeded with the case and
gained il, aud obtained judgments in
the Court OF Dauphin county against
the State for s5, ,26i.25, thus making a
net saving to the county of s3,367.5O.
For this legitimate and successful
action, in the line of my profession, |
have been ungenerously criticised by
persons, who, with the entire people
OF the county, are benefited By my
action.
Judge Pearson, at Harrisburg, be-
fore whom the case was heard, in his
opinion in reference TO the action OF
the Revenue Commissioners, covers all
the disputed points so clearly that |
herewith submit tho following extracts
tbcreirom
at was intended by the law that
the burden Of taxation should fall on
the person who enjoyed tho benefit,
the man who carried the watch, or
had the money out at interest, should
pay the tax, not the person who had
neither the ono nor the other. Ii
cannot be that the number Of car
riages held in county shall be in
creased at Measure. although after the
number Is asccrtained, the value may
be increased by tho Revenue Board.
1t certainly never was intended by the
trainers OF the Act Of 1873, that tho
increased tax shonld be paid out Of the
County Treasury, for that would throw
ii on the real estate, cattle, horses, &c,
already exampled, or that the person
who had paid the tax on his watch or
money at interest should be obliged to
pay it second time"
There is neither listing or esti-
mating the value OF the property in
the case under consideration, or ascer-
tanning the ownership thereof; who
is required by all of our tax laws to
make payment, but an arbitrary Jumped
sum thereon upon county, without
the slightest regard to the property
therein"
y =
ave are then called upon by the
provisions Of tho eighth section of the
Act to ascertain and inquire whether
the Revenue Commissioners exceeded
their powers, or tailed TO do equity in
the premises, or acted without sufficient
evidence. In short, they acted with.
out any evidence did not avail them
selves Of the weak and indefinite evi.
dence required Of them, or at least per-
mitted or pointed out by the statute.
We are therefore Of the opinion that
the appellants have made good their
case
1t has been asserted by persons who
did not take the trouble to inform
themselves, that the county could re.
alizc no benefit from these judgments
without additional legislation, which
could not be procured, and that the
Auditor General and State Treasurer
could not be required to give any
credit for them and that no money
had been returned TO the County
II Tieasury for the judgments.
The iallacy of these assertions will
be apparent upon reference being had
to the annual reports of the Attorney
General, Auditor General and the Act
Of Assembly approved May Gath, 1878,
the ninth section of which is as fol.
lows
Section 3. "lf said court shall find
that said board of Revenue Commis-
s'V"e.s Illegally, i"e9uitably, aud with
out proper and sufficient Information.
increased any such county returns, il
shall ascertain the amount of said
error, and shall thereupon certify the
amount theIe cot 10 the Auditor General
and State Treasurer, who shall there
upon make credit in the accounts of
said county for the said amount, to be
applied upon any then existing or fu.
ture indebtedness of said county to
the Commonwealth for tax upon per
sonal property"
IL will be observed from the reading
of the law, that il was not contem.
plated that the money should be actu.
ally transferred to the County Treas
ury but that the county should have
credit for II in its account current with
the State.
BY reference TO the last annual
reports of the Auditor General, page
l6l, it will be noticed that the proper
crodit Of s1,264.50, has been entered
for the year 1873. The taxes for 1879
are now due, and the county will get
like credit for this year. The same
for 1880 will follow in accordance with
the law and the decisions of the courts.
1t should be kept in mind that the ad.
justment made by the Revenue Board
for the years ls7s-79.s0, were made at
one time, and that the appeals for
those years had TO be taken into court
within thirty days thereafter, which
was done, and the court decided that
the annual sum of s1,264.50 for the
years mentioned should be stricken off
the amount assessed by tho State on
tho county for those years. The coun.
ty would havobeen barred from any re.
lief bad not the appeal been thus taken.
At the time OF the decision above re.
ferrcd to by Judge Pearson thcre was
pending In the said Court, an appeal
from the assessment made for the year
1877 The Court ordered tho case 10
be re.argued, which was done in De.
cember last, and judgment was en-.
tered in said Court, In favor Of the
county for the additional sum Of ST..
470 10, which, underthe law, must be
applied TO any "then existing or iuture
lhueoteuness Oh the county Tor tax on
property"
These judgments are final, and | so
stated to the COMMISSIONER before
received any pay from them; and, at
my own suggestion, gave them
receipt conditioned, that if the county
|ailed TO get credit in accordance with |
The judgment of the Court under OK.
sting laws, | would refund ratable
such sum as the county
allied to get credit for. In regard 10
.hc iinality OF these judgments, | quote
rom the opinion of Attorney General
Lear, which will be found in his last
Annual Report
"a writ Of error would avail moth.
ng, for the decision would be sustain.
ID, oven If there be right to q writ Of