New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-11-30

Tho acton upon which the Court OF Appears
rendered It's important decision was Drougnt oy ''c
State TO recover 81 433 81 from Benton Iufner "hose
iumbermen had trees on lots in Township ~ wa
Military Tract" in Franklin County; OF whoh 'h'
State claimed ownership under tax sale Mr. Turner
i.nued the validity of the tax asserted that he
rtn owned the land, ard. finally, contested tho
constitutionsly OF the Chaplin Act The STATES case
has been managed with great ability In behaf OF inc
Forestry Commissioners by Recorder Hcssoere' OF 'hs
city. and by Peter $. Palmer, of Plattsburg. Judge
Ruger In his decision says
"The action was to recovec the statutory penal
ties for cutting and carrying away trees from lot
No Old Township No 10, In the county OF FRANKLIN
ba,no vacant lands constituting part OF the Forest
p-os.rve and belonging TO the plaintit. The answer
"a, nm first a general denial, and, secondly, that inc
lands I'm question belonged to the deiehuant. NJ
evidence was given on the trial that lot No. 2lo over
belonced to- or was occupied by the deiendsnt' anu
the controversy thereupon resulted III an eno.' oi,
hIs mart TO defeat the recovery through the aueeeo
ro.Sna.s Of the plaintiffs title 1t also claimed
nv The defendant that by Of certain Irregular
,es on the part of the in making
for the wears 1894 and 1867, In this township ue
Controller acquired jurisdiction 10 maze inc sa0'
and an offer to prove this defence was eXcuoou W o
court upon the ground that the Controllers deed was
conclusive evidence OF the regularity OF the piooeou
fnes upon which IL was based The irregularities r.
terrcd IN consisted OF the alleged omission Of the
ssessors TO give notice of the review OF the assess
ments In The years referred to. or to hold meeting
for such purpose and closing and verifying the assess
nent prior to the time prescribed by Shtute iof 80
oone IL il answered 10 this objection that thefe Is
no evidence In the that the sale was Oaseo upon
the taxes levied in the years referred TO- ooaoor
ground for the rejection OF the evidence offered il
anoed bv the effect TO he sscribed 10 the Controller
deed after certain lapse OF time, under Chapter AS
Of the laws Of 1888 the Chaplin sco That act pro
vdss IN relation al such conveyances that all con-
yeysnces that have been heretofore executed by the
Controller after having been recorded for Two years
IN the Office OF the clerk of the county in which the
lands conveyed thereby are located shall SIX months
after this act takes effect be conclusive evidence that
The sale and all proceedings prior thereto were regular
and were regularly executed published and served
according 10 the provisions OF this act, and all laws
directing or requiring the same, ana shali
be presumptive evidence OF the regularity OF the said
procecdiprs and matters herenbeforo recited, and
shall lie conclusive evidence thereof from and after the
expiration Of two years from the date OF recording
such conveyances' The section then further
provdes that all such conveyanccs and certificates
and the taxes and ax-sales which they are based
shall Be subject to cancellation, as now provided by
law on the direct application OF the Controller or any
action brought before competent court therefor, by
reason OF the legal payment Of such taxes. or by
reason OF the lowing Of such taxes by the town
which they are laid The act in towns purpors 10
preserve all existing rights of taxpayers for period
OF six months after the passage of the act. and to
establish rule OF evidence to govern future con-
troversies which made such deeds rresumptive evil
dence Of the egularty of the proceedings upon which
they were based ard after two years from the record
Ing conclusive evidence of the same matters.
With reference b. the SIX months provision
II operates as 10 all existing limitation upon
fhe taxpayers right to assert his claims under pre-
existing laws, and as 10 provided that the
lacse OF two years from recording shall make that
which was before presnmgtive evidence only con
riusWc cppn the rights OF tie parties. TIE act seems
10 he Ia It's particular aspects one OF Limitation and
- such Is within the statutory power Of the Legls
lsture 70 enact as affecting fuiure cases and we
iiI said rules equally Within its power as to existing
ryhis II gives ,,b u all cases lime fer person
rl3ys,sions, I" the -, enactment. But pro
.yienes Of he ,esuIalt,y Of the proceedings upon
w frnently been hed Within The saoT SHarScrcr
~ the legislature 70 enact The power OF the fogis
sfre TO change rule, Of eyide,ce a. they exist Al
u., for the limitation of actions, has been the subject
>. frequenf cons derauon in nc courts ann he be,s
he constitutional provisions prohibiting the iang q
ne liberty Or property wth9G, due Rr9cs t,sr Of LAY law
he no vested right in . rule Of evidence and iha
therefore hc esis9re u could repea the cyd sn
Of the regularity Of the proceedings npon which !
was based Without affecting any eonstitu'irai sn
~ The grantee under such deed CONSIDERED as Al
act of limitation tie only question I'm re alton iheel
* whether such limit alton Is just ana gvc, W
claimant the reasonable opportunity to enforce NJ
tights t'ndor all the circumstances OF ne case
fannOt We think. be stated as a question OF law ma
he time afforded Is unreasonable The arSuHle
4 that legal exercise OF the taxing power by ut
Legislature requires that notlre ana opportunity Y.
b, head Lefore the taxing officers in resp CT 10 tne
imposition Of Ito taxes should BE- afforded 10 the tax
payef and the stress Of the contention that me ao
owner has by the operation OF this law. been oe,
ur.ved OF BIS day IN corr. Unl'ss, Therefore, II
ran be shown that the taxpayer has been actually y
heard on the imposition OF this Tax, the argument
fans. y was stated b. Judge Allen n Hqwsh ag,,
cannot take from parties vested rights without com
relssiion. ihe remedies By which rght are 70 be
enforced or defined are within the absolute oonfro
~ thof brnuch M ths Goyernmsnt., The rules o