, 1881-01-30

| AAOldEH CIEAh CASE UE ALTERATION
in the real-estate warrant c:tme to light day be"
fore yesterday, involving the property OF Mr.
| Folz, the vault clerk in the County Building,
] and his brother. They own jointly Lots !, 2, and
In Davis Subdivision OF Block 3 OF Sec 50. The
| assessments iSl,5U0) and the extensions on tho
! warrant OF 1850 had all been scratched out and
{ other figures Inserted. but subsequently the
| original ones put In. Whether this latter was
done after.tho discovery OF the alterations in
| the personal-property warrants Is unknown.
That IS the impression Of those who have seen
| the changes. The amounts are uu right now,
! however, and the charitable view Is that the
| erasures were due to "clerIcal error
to The sne " lotg the ot
sessed ut $500, Nos. and 8 ut $s5O. These
amounts had been crossed out with lead pencii,
and sou and $50 written over them: Tie au-
thority for the change appeared in the margin
oftho paEs Es by % snnsens 10 OF h, assessor. r;s IN ,,
never consented to the reduction. Mr. Foly,
however, procuced the following:
T.. "GA1cAGo, ; Aug -, lssa-E. F. Z. Kohke, Coun-
Vision OF II: E. < of T E. :; Of $. " 4. Sec. = 81,
II. improvements are assessed twice. Please
Sa0, Lots : aud frou $50 TO s255 This viii
make them equal to other lots, se1ne block ana
:s's: Srsk
10 tie eonney % ccrk m ali ehe he
were discharged on that day, when Lot was as
sessed 1T $s01, and Lots and at $3.50. including
improvements. The letter OF Mr: cozzens IS
dated Aug 2s-forty-s six days after he ceased to
be Deputy Assessor.
Then the reduction was unauthorized"
Entirely SO. 1 never knew anything about
until to-day. Last summer Mr. Folz came over
d. during Ing h+ the mssttnE ss of the Town noara
erty, bringing with him hls receipt
book WHICH showed that be hnd paid on valua-
tion Of $50 the year before; He asked why he
mud been assessed so high this year. inves-
tfgnted the matter, and found by comparison
With J1 my BOOKS t that the valtat!on in ny books
zens where Folz got his figures. and be satd he
supposed be got them in the County Clerks Of
tice. Cuzzcus did not inform me that he had is-
lowering WAS done on this letter, which wAs en-
ttrely unauthorized. as It was written afler he
hati CEASED to be Deputy Assassor."
What are you gong to do about it?'
hhyen'r made up my mind yet
Mr. Folz, In explanation. produced Cozzeps' !
letter, ndsaid that Mr. Fitch a clerk. had made
the change In 1873 by order OF MIR. Reinke. As !
to the scratching on the 1889 warrant, he knew |
nothing about 1t, havIng nothing to do with |
figuring Ia the books himself.
The Chief Clerk OF 1lr. Klokke said |
THE REVENUE LAW WAS NOT ADAPTED 70 |
COOK COUNTY.
The Assessors began work May and were re-
usscssmeuts in that time. The assessments
were only partially made, and the County Clerk
any official communication from the ]
Assessors office us to the lowering Of assess
1t was an accident, too, that brought to the
surface this peculiar way Of doing business, and
the circumstances show the need OF reform, II
The TRIBUNE inadvertently used the name OF !
J: ". Norris the other day instead OF B. F. MIR
ris- The former has had nothing to do with Mr.
Eaton. andhts assessment was not fraudulently