Daily Republican., 1880-09-30
THE LEVY OoURT DUTIES.
Orision Of George Gray, Esq. i.
Counsel To she COurt-zhe C0urt
May strike Names or the Asses.
sOrs, Lists.


The following Is the opinion in full o
George Gray, Bsq., attorney to the Levy
Court OF New Castle County 1T the
March term 1876, in regard 10 striking
names from the assessment
The following question has been pro:
posed to me by the Levy Court
''If the names OF any one was return
ed by the collector OF any hundred, in
March, 1875. and was under the sta,ute
stricken from the assessment list, and
should now be placed in the list Of the
assessor Of any hundred, and returned
TO the Levy Court, has the Levy Cour;
any power to prevent such illegal as
sessment!"
By an act passed April ., 1873, the
has undertaken to further
regulate and prescribe the duties OF as
SCISSORS, and to protect the assessment
lists from improper interference. The
act commences by declaring 1t unlawful
tor any assessor, either in the general
assessment or in any annual assess
ment, to place the name of any person
in the assessment for poll-tax merely
OF whom the assessor is not satisfied
from personal knowledge that he Is q
bona fds resident OF the hundred or
assessment district, except as therein
after provided. This after provision
is, that the assessor shall attend st
the place ofholdiAg the general election
in the hundred, on certain days Of
which he shall give notice, for the pur.
pose Of assessing any person who may
nave been omitted, and of correcting
his assessment, and that any person
who may have been omitted and who
shall appear before the assessor at such
time and prove his right TO be assessed
by the affidavit Of some respectable
'reeholder shall he placed in this as.
Iessment by the assessor.
And that any assessor refusing to put
N the assessment the name of any per.
on appearing and proving his right
hereto, shall be guilty OF miSdemean.
n, go.
Section 6 Of the act then declares that
sit shall not bs lawful for the Levy
court or any member
hereof to take from the assessment re
urned TO the said Levy Court by any
'ssessor the name OfaDy person appear
ng therein; or to add to any assess
nent rsturned as aforesaid the name OF
ny person unless upon the personal
.pplication Of such person, and upon
roof OF his right to be- assessed as re-
uired TO be furnished to an assessor
" section 2 Of the act.
Section 3 of the same act provides
hat 1t shall not be lawful for any as
sssor or any Levy Court upon the per-
onal application Of any one, or other.
rise, to place upon the assessment list
( any hundred the name Of any per.
on Who, having failed to pay the coun-
y tax assessed against him or her for
he preceding year, wAs returned and
lIoWed as delinquent until after the
expiration Of the twelve months from
be time such allowance as delinq quent
'as made by the Levy Court.
So much for the act Of April ., 1873.
N April 10, 1878. the Legislature pass
4 ian act in relation 10 the collection
I taxes in this State. in which it is
rovided that, II collector shall make
n affidavit that he attended at the
me and places prescribed by said aot
" the collection Of taxes, and in all
lings oontotmed to its requirements,
shall be the duty Of the Levy Court
, allow said collectors as delinq uenoies
ls taxes uncollected by him, and the
ames of such delinqusuts shall be
roppsd from the assessment list by the
evy Court and shall not be placed
erson again for a period of twelve
onths from and after the date Of such
llowance, provided that the provi-
ons Of this section shall apply TO per-
ms assessed and liable to pay poll
4.
The object Of all this legislation Is
,parent. II is to prevent the fraudu-
mt assessment of persons who should
,t be assessed. and to insure the as
Of those who should rightfully
} asset sed. And as one means of ofaccom-
ishing this object 1t strikes from the
It for the space Of twelve months the q
lines Of all delinquents returned un-
II the provisions of this act, on the
IS We must suppose, that
9 names are fictitious, or that the I
rsons are not residents in the State
le two acts being the part material
ust be taken together, and If there is
y inconsistency or contrariety In
cir provisions, they must be con-
-usd 20 as to give as far as possible 4
ect to the will of the Legislature. n
lis is q we'll settled canon or statute q
construction.
Keeping this in view, then how are
, to interpret the language of the
Ith section of the act Of April 9th, .
70, so as not to render nugatory the Il
Ohibition OF the ninth section OF the .
ne act, and the positive require U
mt Of the subsequent statute of
,ril l0S
am, after careful reflection, OF the
inion that the universally of the
lguags in Section 6, Of the Act OF ~
'ril ., declaring that it shall not be i
vful for the Levy Court to remove re
IN the assessment the name Of any
rson appearing thereon, must be
allied by the prohibition Of Section
Of the sams act, and more especially In
the mandatory language OF the sub d.
uent Act req airing the Levy Court dl
irop from tas assessment list the CT
mss of certain deli Iquents. If this NJ
Ie not so, the will Of the Legislature ar
last expressed would be defeated by sh
,rior enactment. In this later Act co
Levy Court are required to drop
keep dropped for the space Of
i've months, the names Of certain
ki
- L 1t