The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1882-04-22
WHERE CATTLE Is TAXED.
Decision that Will Materially Re-
duee the Revenue of White Pine
County.

| n 1NNAsAoh AAaA W Ill IaNtIIAlly EAe=
duce the Revenue of White Pine
County.
| In the District Court at Eureka, last
week, the case Of Fred. Barnes vs.. w.
! Woodberry, Assessor OF White Pine
! county, To recover $500 taxes paid on
cattle in this county, which defend
ant claims was unlawfully collected.
In this action the complaint sets
| forth the facts that defendants was the
Assessor of White Pine county dur
ing 1881, and that | 100 Of plaintiffs
cattle We're assessed by defendant in
that county during that yslr, that
during 1880 and 1881 plaintih resided
IN Eureka county; that said cattle,
with others owned by plaintiff, were
herded on a tract Of land owned by
him in Eureka county each winter,
and at all times We're managed and
controlled from his said land in Eu-
reka county, which he declares is the
'home ranch Of said cattle: that hav-
ing no real estate in Viii Pine
county, defendant compelled plain
tiff to pay to him $500 as taxes assess
eel aga INST said cattle for White Pine
county, in order to prevent defend
ant from selling them.
The Court ruled in favor Of plaintiff,
and said:
The question practically involved
in this case seems to have been pass
ed upon by the Supreme Court Of this
state, in the case of Conley vs.. Chedic
Z, Nevada Reports, wherein the Court
says:
"phe statute requires or authorizes
the assessment OF all property in the
county during certain time in each
year. Now, what property is to be
understood as being in the county?
Can it be said that such a. is simply
passing through it for the purpose Of
market elseN here. or is destined for
some other county in the State, is
property in the county for the pur-
pose OF taxation ? Certainly not. To
constitute it. property for that pur-
pose IN any particular county 1t must
be in such situation as TO make il
"A part OF the wealth OF that county; il
must belong in II; must be ineorpo-
rated with the other property Of the
county,
Il cannot be said that these cattle
"belonged" in White Pine county, or
that they were "ineorpofated with the
other property ofthe county," but, on
tile contrary, thai they "bclongedp
in Eureka county and ranged alone
unincorporated "with the other prop
ertY OF that county, and constituted
no part OF the wealth of the county,
of White Pine.
The condition OF the State is such
that oek grazing ia large herds must
neeess sarily often change their loca-
lion, either on account OF the scarcity
of herbage at all seasons, or owing to
the difficulty Of obtaining il during
tbe wintr season in places where
feed in the summer may be abundant.
This fact lends force 20 the RUE, ap.
plying ii to stock in this Stat, that
Tin general personal property follows
the person OF the owner and i'm all
such instances, rs in the case at bar,
must be confined TO the " person Of
the owner" or great confusion and
hardship will en~ue.
This view Is sustained in People Us.
w bbIlGiliNf % NetAsf tpog iftlfAV -
Niles ct al, b Cal, 2S2; Oakland vs..
Whipple, 80 Cal, III; Hayes Ys. Pa
citic NJ. ). Co., IL How'd, 597.
1t is, therefore, ordered, that the
demurrer be overruled and defendant
given five days in which TO answer.
HENY 4IvEs, DlstrictJndge.
We coincide with the Elko Inde-
pendent, which says that the above
is very comforting view Of the case
for such counties as Eureka, which
having very small territory, and no
grazing lands to speak Of, is thus au-
thorized to forage on the domain of
her neighbors, and like veritable bne-
cancers pay tribute to none but the
robber chief. 1t is likely that this
decision will not stand, and it ought
not.
Il