The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1884-04-22
lerdsy to Auditor Walker fully explains

! DEAR SIR Il am In receipt of your
communication requesting my opinion as
! follows: Can township boards levy in ex-
cess of the limit fixed In section IL, article
! 10. of the constitution"
| In answer i desire 10 saw that the annual
rate liked by the section Of the constitution
above referr.d 10, 10 be levied ON the SUBJ
! iects and objects Of taxation for county
! purposes, includes road and bridge taxes,
and in fact all current county expenditures.
This is very obvious II We look al the
closing part of the section mentioned as
! follows:
"Sad restrictions, as TO rates, shall
apply to taxes of every kind and descrip-
ton, whether general or special, except
taxes TO pay valid Indebtedness now exist
ing, or bones which may be issued In re-
newal of such Indebtedness" This lam
guage admits of no question that the de-
sign OF the constitutional convention In the
use of the term, county purposes" was to
cover every species OF ordinary current ex-
penditures Does the provision apply 10
counties under township organization? L
entertain DO doubt that il does. Section
8 of article OF the constitution says that
$50 much of this constitution as provides
for the management of county affairs and
the assessment and collection of the revenue
by county officers, In conflict with such
general law for township organization. NAV
be dispensed with, etc. A little eIsmina-
ton OF this language will show clearly,
think, that the intention of the provision
is merely TO allow of different method of
assessing and collecting the revenue, and
has no reference to the rate to be levied.
For fuller discussion of this question
permit me TO refer you 10 my opinion given
10 the house OF representatives of the 3lst
general assembly, house journal 1881, page
Isl.
As to the county board of equalization
in counties under township organization,
would say this: The township Law abol
ishes the Office of county assessor There
is, in other words, no such Office in cOun-
ties under township organization, and
there is no statute or township law affect
lug the county board of equalization in
such counties. Ii follows, therefore, that
this board remains the same in counties
under township organization as In other
counties, save that the place of the county
assessor is vacant and not provided for
But otherwise the board stands in full |
force. Very respectfully,
ID. ii. MCINTYRE,
Attorney General.
The supreme court met this morning !
pursuant 10 adjournment, all of the judges |
berg present. The proceedings were as
follows.
Leslie Smith, administrator, ETC., plain |
tiff in error, VS.. Daniel C.. Steele, defend |
ant in error, from Cooper circuit; sub |
mitted on briefs.
l.. Methody ct al, plaintiffs in error, VS.,
J John Ross IT al, defendants in error, from |
court of appeals; argued and submitted.
George \. Kerr, appellant, VS.. f. c.
Simmons, ct al, respondents, from the ST. |
Louis court of appeals; submitted on
briefs.
r. L. Wilson, defendant in error, vs.
Charles B. Mack, plaintiff in error; ten
days to plaintiff in error 10 resist motion
TO dismiss writ Of error.
State ex rel, L. 0Brien, defendant in
error, VS.. George w. KoOntz ct al, plant
ifs in error, from Cooper county; submit
teed on briefs.
State. plaintiff in error, VS.. August Den
golsky ct al, defendants in error, from
Cooper circuit; submitted on briefs.
Joseph p. Landes, guardian, etc, re-
spondent, VS.. Eppstein. administrator, etc,
appellant, from Cooper county; submitted
on briefs.
J, NJ. Clifton ct al, appellant, VS.. T. L.
Sparks respondent, Morgan circuit; SUBJ
mitted on briefs
VIM. K. Heath respondent vs. NJ, X. &
I. Railroad company appellant, Howard
circuit submitted on briefs.
Jasper county respondent VS.. S. G. Frank
lin appellant, Lawrence county motion TO
affirm renewed.
VIM. Glasgow, Junior, respondent, VS..
Lem II. Baker ct al, appellant, court OF APP
peals sore faicis ordered issued.
David l.. Hammond ct al, respondent, VS.
Ann Eliza Gordon appellant; leave TO c.
f. Gibson 10 file brief.
The following cases have been submitted
On briefs and were referred TO the commits
;iOner:
Murphy VS. Smith Stonebraker VS. Ford;
State ex rel Maiser VS. Keup; ONe,l VS.
Hamlin; Kendrick VS. c. q A. railroad;
Heard VS. Lock; Chiles VS. Thompson; Bur-
len VS. Johnson; Crane VS. Timberlake;
Dougherly VS. Missouri Pacific railroad
20; Park VS. Thompson; Southworth VS.
Lamb; Dougherty VS. Adkins; Moore VS. ST.
L w. q z. railroad; Shrule vs. Freeman;
Shale VS. Lampkin, State VS. Meyers. /,
John L. My Is, respondent, VS.. Civ oil .
81. Louis. appellant. from the court of APP
1eals argued and submitted on a rehear-
ng
Phoebe O'Callahan, appellant. VS.. Thos.
)Callahan, from Greene circuit; appeal
dismissed for failure.
Martha Hayes ct al, respondents, VS..
ethan Miller, appellant, from Greene cir
uit; submitted on briefs. II
School District, etc, appellant, VS.. S.
Andrews, clerk of the county court of l.,
Wayne county, respondent, from Wayne :
ircuit submitted on briefs. y,
w. L. Seeper ct al, appellants, VS.. Sam'l ,
\. Bates, respondent, from Wayne circuit
ubmitted ON briefs. =
City OF ST. Louis, respondent, vs.. ST. '
,ouis Gas Light company, appellant, three
asses, from court of appeals; argued and J
unlimited.