Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-23
More Startling Figures.

ell met Ne n board Of equalization {,
hear protests against the assessor,
valuation Of property. There wa,
not a quorum present -ud the oblec
tons were filed for future action:
Louisa VI. johnson owned : nal
piece Of property which the county
ASSESSOR valued at $500. NJ,
Cluie's valuation was 3, 800, which
she considered excessive.
Mrs, J. l.. Spague owned 6xlsj,
in lot :, bl1ck ., IlIt 4, which was
assessed AZ S23,ODJ, which was too
high.
Kate Farrell stated that she owned
l0KiJ rOds In the Niuihwari which
was A. ss-ed At sIl.iJl, lille the
county ASSESSORS valuation Wa So
Loo. On another piece in the Seven
trenth Ward Mr.. Cute, valuation
Wa $50, while the valuation Of
the county as-' ssJr wa, $500. She
thought the city ASSASSINATION high
anu sssei for relief.
a. Livingston ownei lot in the
Twelfth wsri which was valued at
Sl". 50. This IVES altogether too
high.
Z. y SBeucer stated that he
owned n iu: N n,e Twentieth Ward
which Wa valued at -. Hu. Mr..
Spencer vas willing a. sell ihe T-.u.-
city for les than that.
MIR. sarah Nrwvll's property in
the Eleventh Wan! was valued hy
Mr.. Jlutr at $3.50. while the
~ruuiy a-~es-1r'- figun,-- were :. Iul.
She tiiUr.ht She lItter'- valuation
was about right
William fiaysJirS, 81 TIE sine
ternth Wand, Uwn,4 two lots - hiuh
were valued At 81 i.u. This vas
more than double last years a--,s,-
nteut and was eNgt s-ivr.
George kiilpack owned n lot iu
tie Twentieth Nari, upon which
lac was taxed sl6.jl. last year his
is> On tn. same piece was sl.GJ.
Mr.. Annie Brown owned n lot
ia tIc Nineteenth wari which ~aS
valued st $3.50. This was just
81 r.1 higher than the county A.
-e>-ur's valuation and she thought
Il too high.
Mr., Clara VI. ClaWs1n owned a
Dot iu Plat ! which wa valued az
S>'rll. Alrs. Claws0u considered
this too high ami was willing o. eel
q for les tuau tnas.
The following PERSONS asked for
reductions on account, II poverty.
etc Thomas Wan, % tic Tween
ty-fr>t Wand, =; Isunah Mid
land, Eig'fseGih Wand; Mary
4. Green. Fguti yTa-t, Tl4.S: \.
J. Beer. Tenth WarI, 81; sane
SySc~, Fifth Wand, SEQ; IhoIha-
sixteenth Wand. - !.
Alfalgs Young o'jrrtrit 20 the val
uliiuU un Dol ! hi0-k ~. Plat u.
The property wH- yaiUcl hy tLe as-
SCISSOR al SO per front loot, with one
fourth u said rate added o. - Zee;
pu account uf it, icing a CORNER. Mr..
\ uuug thought iigi~ Wa about "a
iIiui higher than a fir valuation
ID the property, and s.l"i q r,,iuc-
ton 10 that extent.
ElhEiIgr TUFTS claimed that be
was -.~>,ssJ-i twice uu the same
property. rrI AFTER examination,
Mr.. Cluic Acknowledged 'his. Then
Nir. Tufts objected o. tIc valuation
placed upon his property, which
.sH- : '..Ft. when thv county a~-
.t~>uIvU. w. - "EI. lie al-I oh
vcf,i tp the vsiuptigI: e si,@' on
bis merchandise ami claimed that
= ,5.rI Vas sll % was worth.
Tine following communications
'vvTc files
q .s. Fsf.rs. .,f .-s
Dear ~sr--Tl- ;s., u,. -'rt q Iu: q.
Ii.sk %. pa. 4. Iu the ulms O.. Mr.
Atwood wuIrI ur hHg- Co 7Iv b. as
,s-~ssl Boz "sF estimate uppu ga gN-
st--~lya .lf.rT 100. TIA. county tax
ll the same o., yIIgHI a. slTau'. ;h-
Hty valuation s- S-t.1. Your pitt
.ir.tar- respectfully uHIua-t "a fair
81. .s7t..a o. "lr lr.
..... Haf e''u'fr.
Mlu.iIr " SHS..
I1s f.. >rT Er.r r.f. EHu.F OF ~.
f-H..Has
U'-urlam. u hereby 'u'cr my pgH-
,.-r against .H.. Hs. .Iiu.a- IurrrI-c %
az I--s--furu- .Hr I~.H over tiIIl q
49, y,H- la. years ASSESSMENT uu
uy property. Ns-, Do . block fI, p.a'
~. was ~HH This wear tine same
property Do i-.z..s-1Ti sr s.H.I.r-
Hf>.r ssi'ur frrl'fH-l u--ur-t st5" Im-
.-r1vs---rHniH .siia-lr.d GOA ths Above
rHrnrEE. The u-tN Improvements
.Hlt have mad -HTs-f-I- 90 tsl -islt-
Z e sum fu"r kitchen FRI chicken
-1up am prepared o. prose H~ Jhc
s.B lrmiu IHFF a.8 iLg above uugE
hat ra.. ,-r.' q Jlr slime i.l not rN-
7.zHl twenty -ifyrslHiifr--
WuTir. yo-' wlI mas" my Tax ral-
.uuaIslr. I r.IsFlu. sruiieu-u re ,ps--- /
.u..v yuuT-.
GIaE.L UrNTahu-
The, blarl then adjourned until :