The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-05-27

is perfect at that time to pay an
amount which shall be determined
by the assessor, subject to the action
of the Appeal Board. The assessor
has not to ascertain who may be the
owners of the property of his district
at any other date, or at the date of
the completion of his assessment list
on or before the 18th of September.
If that were the case what would be
the force of the provision that the
ownership shall be reported as it
stood on the first of July2 There is
no provision of the Statute for re-
porting to the ASSESSOR the changes
in ownership which may be made
during the time of making up the
assessments, and he is not required
to find them out. We have observed
above that real and personal pro-
perty are treated alike. For an IL
lustration of the confusion which
would arise in following a fugitive
ownership, take the case of thous-
and dollars cash in the possession of
A. on the first of July and instead of
taxing him for that whenever the
assessment is completed, il has to be
taxed in the hands of those to whom
it has passed subsequently and may
be at the date when the assessment
OF different individuals may be en-
tered. But our law imposes no such
difficulty. The work of the assessor
relates to the first of July and the
charge is fixed on that day whatever
may be the subsequent date when
the assessor makes up the assessment
OF individuals and completes the en-
tire district.
In the case before us the tax was
upon both real and personal property.
1t cannot well be commended, and it
has not been, that the tax on the
personal property does not adhere to
the owner of it July LIST. We see no
reason to support the proposition
that that portion of the tax which
was on the real estate was fixed at
any subsequent date. 1t cannot
be supported by the provision
that in case of transfer of
real estate the tax may be held as
lien upon it, for that Is merely an
additional or cumulative remedy be-
yond the provision that levy may be
made upon the goods and chattels
for the taxes due by an individual,
whether upon real or personal prop
erty. The tax-collector looks to the
plaintiff personally for the taxes on
the property owned or possessed by
him on the first of July, and may sue
him, or levy upon his goods and
chattels, or for that portion of the
tax which is laid on the real estate
he may attach it even after it's sale.
The covenent in the deed protects
the purchaser, if this latter remedy
is pursued.
In support of the views above ex-
pressed we may cite the general OBJ
servation made in billiard on Taxa
ton, p. III: Assessments must be
made against the party who owns
the property on the day in each year
in which the assessment is by law to
commence, quoting from State vs..
Hardin 81, N. j. so. The practical
effects of a different construction
we're confusion in the transfers of
hindrance in the ordinary |
of business, and diff |
guilty in rendering a full and true |
account of rateable property by the |
owners thereof whenever the asses
'ors might call for it."
The findings of the Chief Justice
n respect to the other items held to
,e made on the defendants account
ire all dependent on questions of
act, and we consider that must
tand unless set aside for such rea-
ons as would set aside the verdict of
/ jury.
As we reverse the finding of the
chief Justice which made the de.
endant liable for the taxes, this
$36704, must be subtracted
rom the sum $667 .36a for which the
Plaintiff recovered judgment below,
eaving the sum of $780, 2aa, for which
um with costs and commissions
he plaintiff may take judgment.
w. 0. Smith for plaintiff; F. M.
latch for defendant.
Honolulu, May 9Th, 1890.
-.