Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-01-23

WHERE THE MONEY WENT.
The principe! Items OF expenditures during
Inst year were:
Executive departments. .sl0,lf2 90
interest, 36,5i1h0
tulnred schools ,....,................. 6,0O0,0o
SlAto lnlhtih.. =.......,,-......... 2,iOG1
state Insane Asylum. ......,.......... l,0W.00
Annual encnmputeut Of State militia l0,gDO.27
Printing and stationery. ............. G,2B2.45
touilSl tees. l,stO.ul
Appropriation for centennial celebra-
ton at Washington. .,....,........,. i,0D0.O0
Members OF General Assembly ........ 18llI.i9
onteers and contingent eSpenies, do. 6N@5.tN
AllWynnccs malo by LvEislat'g,e...... ig.229.te
Appropriation 10 tree schools ....,.... 25,OO0.tN
redemption OF state bonds. ......... 700CN,O0
Inc sum OF 1900 each was paid for the
following pupils kept by the State ut the
Columbia Institution for the Deaf and
Dumb; Elizabeth Pagan, Maggie Hyde,
Maurice L. Fell, Alyerdia Oornogand aud
Gertrude Parker, New Castle county;
Herbert Herd, Ida Boyer and Herbert
Jump, Kent county; William Argo, Walter
Argo end Nellie Lynch, Sussex county;
total, 81 200.
Tie school fund for the year was as
follows: State appropriation, S25, 900;
surplus of revenue tund, $1S.705; general
fnnd and other sources, SIS, $40; total,
SS3 5l5 80. II was distributed "a follows;
In New Castle county, $3l ,692.99; Kent,
$23, 456 81; Sussex, S2S, 1865. 81.
Secretary Of State salisbury, Senate
Clerk AbrRm ?. VapdaRritt, House CLERK
William A. Gum and Insurance Commits
sioneE Pratt, are also here, awaiting the
action OF the committee in making allow
anoe for the printing OF their respective
journals and reports.
TIE TAX LAW OPINION.
Tho x,f a-.,,s or,nnaIa ,,,n,
occupied ali of this afternoon in hearing
the case Of James W. SpraRnce, plaintiff
below, plaintiff in error, va William
Trna1, defendant below, defendant in
error. The cuse pTsw out of the i'm
pounding Of tie plaintiffs cattle by the
defendant, and il the trial thu jury de.
cided in fsvor CT the defendant, when an
appeal was taken. II. II. Ward, Esq.,
for plsintff, aud Thomas Davis, Esq,
for defendant, The amount involved ia
only about 5000. This esse will run well
into ;o-mosroW's session and there is an
other snail caae TO follow, so that there
Is no probability of the decision OF the
| comet upon the oonati5utionalisy OF the
tax law OF 1873 being rendered until
| EhHFsdny at least, While II may hs 1e.
layad until Friday Il Is known, how.
| ever, that there will he decision by q
majority Of tie Ave judges comprising
\ tAe court, though dissenting opinion is
not at all improbable. The court has
mot y5t held any formal couapltation
upon the question, out will probably do
80 tomorrow.
The case is that of John III. Fries
zlsben vs.. Ser2ch +. ShSlloruss, rnomas
Toy, Thomas &C0raeken, Isaac NJ Grub,
bert Il. Morrison, henry d. Hickman,
Edmund Hamsn james II. Maokey,
Danes T. Taylor, George O. Rothweil and
James I. Cheairs, all of Whom, ut the
time the case Was started were members
OF the levy court Of New Castle county.
The case was directed by the superior
court to be heard in the court OF errors
and appeals, aad the facts, as agreed
upon by counsel for both sides and pre-
scented to the court, are as follows:
I'm February, 1855, the name Of the
plaintiff was on general assessment l!s'
for the sixth ward of the city OF Viii
mlngton and the levy conrt OF New Gas
tie county ultarward, il the spring OF tht
same year, duly ltid poll ta1 upon him
Gu the second day OF March 1856, tht
plaintiff who had not paid SAIL poll tax
was returned ty the collector OF count,
taxes for the collection district including
the Sixth ward OF taid city, TO said lev,
court US delinquent, and thereafter, o.
the 20ih day OF March in the same year
the defendants, composing aud citing a
said levy ooust, allowed 4aid poll tax b
delinquent ami cens0d the mans of IT,
plainEll 70 be struck and dropped from
,na assessment list; whereby no tax we
assessed or laid upon the Plaintiff for ia
year 1855, Rrd ne was consequently dc
priyel OF all oppori s1ity at any time t
pay q county tex for thst year ard thersb
. qualify himself 10 vote at the generl
: election in November Of that yeGF, a
.boagh in sli respects, save the pRymer
: o. u ccuaty Tax, qualified as "a eieCtol
TIE levy cont apd no evidence that til
Z plBiatiH vas dead OK had left the Sta.
: or the Sixth ward OF said city, or sal
collection District. Fhs only syidenc
! Sefora saia oourt was the collectors n
tn1n OF tho plalaJE ~ "deliLqnen..
The action % toe defendants III cGuGin
he ngms OF the plaintiff to be struck a.
I dropped frcla the asIsssmeut list an
: continuing 70 lssve il CiI the Same was
/ strict accordance with the provisions
section ] os tho act entitled An q,
h ~ relation to the collection
8 ,axas in this Ststn, passed a Drvc
|. AFsii 10Th, 1873, aud the provisions
4 section Of the act eE.itiGd IN sct
g rtiatiOn to the duties OF assessors ana
d Sae levy couFts in the several counties
y. the stats, paBs d at Dover, april g.l
= I3t3. Section ] Of .ae act Of phil 1Ot
q. lH7S, provides thss in the case Cf pa
10 SOILS assessed and liable to pRy poll tax
" ugo4 the return o! tae collector ii for
4 AID verified as therein pi Tided, ii shn
He the dG.y Of the levy court 20 sllc
5aid collector as deluquencIe5 d
taxes uncolactel by him, hnd Il
pems Q. such delirguents Rhall
dropped iTc'u the assessment list by Il
a., lsvy cSnrL and shall not ba placed therer
&c. pe,i0l o. IL months fruu and AT
aS tie date OF tuch allowance.
section . q the act Of April 9th, 49,
3 ora7idsa shat 1t snall net be lawful (
i any asgeaSur OF any levy court, upon 4
., pegss4sl application t9t any one
z. otherwise, 70 pace upon the sssessme
es IN any hGndred tho name OF any pars
IS VIC having tallga to pay the county I
81 esss1se6 A2eiLst MIN or her for the ri
10 cehlng year Was rN;urned snd allowed
40 delinquent until Iitgs the expiration
OF tho twelve months t.9tA the tins such
as loHEucs s5 delinquent was made By {
levy ceu:t.i lUe defen3antu rely w
tae foregoing provisions tor the jUstitii
tlon ~ sneit action IN caasiuR thu no.
~ u ne plaintiff t. he struck and dropp
irnm $40 Gss9asmaat ligt and contiaul
i9 = Is vs il Of the RgYls.
Ed IGh pl-.otiG had not paid any cour
1@ toy WlsAin tie space a Two Neers a.
preceding tic general elfnt.o1 in 1856
this sH't u Ru action ~ the 81
aT91Hnt To- sac recovery " damages