Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-30

high.
Harriet Hooking owned n lot II
the Twelfth Wari, which CIu;e va
lued at $500, while the county n
SCISSOR made it $500. She considers
Clute's figures excessive.
Mary a. Wooliey owned a lot OF
the corner OF Second South aud Sec
ond East, which the city assesso,
valued at $4,000. while the county
assessor valued it at SIS, 600. Mrs
Woolley did not think Mr.. Clut,
was justified in making such high
valuation.
! orzon \. Woolloy male objection
! 70 his property ia block 80, plat F
being valued at $500. The county
valuation was $500.
II. A. WOolley owned a lot OF
.nird South which was valued a
$3.50, while tie county valuation
was only $500. He considered the
latter figure high enough.
| William Hirkam objected Z
| Clule's valuation or $500 on hi.
| property on Sixth South Street. The
! county valuation ON the same prom.
a .
erty was 500.
l.. Brice bought a lot on Second
East Street during the boom for
S4ll1; Clute valued It at s5lO0. Mr..
Rriee said he would like to find a
purchaser at Clute's figures.
George Hewlett oljected to Clule-s
valuation Of - SIS on his lot in In.
Third ward, which was valued bv
the county at sl.0o'.
Sophia Made purchased a lot ON
! Fourth South Street. in Nov, mber.
for si,l01. Clutevalued il at >, 500.
and the lady thought CIute was of
his blse.
ID. L. Murdoch owned property on
G.. Street. which Clute valued nj
ss,50a, Thir Wa more than the
property would sell for, and he con-
siiereI il unjust.
q. G. johnson owned a small lot
on Oak Street which Chute valued at
=, $40, while the county made q
Sj0l. He thought the city was
much too klg..
Robert Patrick stated that he
owned lYt in the Eighteenth wand,
and 4 public ditch took up liz feet
Of his land. The property vas
valued by Clute at ss,65D. and in
view Of the circumstances he CON
siieni this too high.
William N. Anderson thought
Cute's valuation OF S5,2235 ON his
lot in the Sixth ward was excessive.
J. NJ. Bailey had a lot on Sec
ond North Street, which he pug.
chased tgO years ago fir s4,u1l.
Clute valued Il at slT,2el. and Mr..
Raiiey considered that outTageously
higl',
George Openshaw objected u
Clute's valuation Of 5000 on his lot
in the Eighteenth ward.
J. b. Toronto, representing the
Toronto estate, objected to Ciute's
valuation Of his property Ia the
Eighteenth Ward OF SAC, $50. a.
against tie county valuation Of s233,-
600. The SAME property was val
usd 10y the city last year At $, zoo.
Mrs. Burrows stated that Clute
had valued her merchandise ~ a.
900 more than it was worth.
r. N. Benedict owned a LOT ia the
SNth Wari which Clute vaiuel at
SlI,-JD. Mr.. Benedict stated that
he would be very glad 10 sell out at
Clute's figures.
Harriet ID. EllerbeCk, Of the Seven
tceuIh Wa-i, objected 10 Ciu;e's
valuation Of 81 .U1l on her proper
~. The county valuation vas Sl6,-
90.
N. J. Lambouruc, Of the Sever
toeuth Ward, thou sht the assessors
valuation Un her lot, $3.50, was eS-
ccs,ive.
Eliza Kennedy, Of the Nine
teeuth Ward, owned a Ut which the
assessor valUed NJ s35'1. Il was too
high.
II. Harris was assessed on 500
Improvements. lie had NJ improve
mentS ami Didn't propose 10 Jay for
any.
". c. Miller. Of the Seventeenth
Ward, thought the valuation placed
on his property, Sl5'i, was exec
sive.
1T. L1vesy- ascending Ia the A..
scissor, owned property worth $500.
Mr.. LJveSy DIDN'T agree with the
asse-sor-
Annie MARKS objected to CIu.e'-
valuation Of Sa31j on hcr lot ia the
Eleventh Ward.
T.. II. Price owned Dot which
Clu;c valued at $500. lie would
ike b. sell Il l8r S5t'i.
Tie estate Of X. 3. Nlrsetts
thought Cluie's valuation on their
property, S1syJo, was Si.g1j too
high.
". II. Tol-om's property was
valued at Sjl .glJ, which hc cousid-
cred excessive. The county val1a-
ton was siz.Hl1.
T.. 4. k---leI's lot was valued
hy C!Itc 2. sjl5t, while tEe county
assessor m1i, 20 Si,ili. lie thyJght
Chute was nighiy.
John Degry's properly on Third
= lu.h was valued by Ciu.c n 81 j.
$40 and 10y the county al 5000. He
thought the latter's figures were
high enough.
r. +. Taylor's property on Thini
South was valued by Chute at ST9.-
gI1 and by the county nj 81, 600.
He thought Clute'- valuation was
excessive.
l.. {. Trent stated that Ciute's
valuation ON Fraser AZ CuImer's
stock was Sl3,7Dl, while the county
made it 81, Ull, anu the county was
right.
Clule was asked as b whom he
got his figures from ami he replied,
"JOe Gallagher
IT. Chamberlain. Of the Fiji
teenth Ward, objected 30 Cluie's
valuation Of SIS, 900 ON his lot in the
Fifteenth Wand. This was cOnsit-
erlbiy more than Il was worth.
Receiver Lawrence made a wig
orOus kick against Clute's valuation
Of the Tithing House property, |
SISl. s1l. The county assessor valu-
Ell il at STs.Tjl. Mr.. Lawrence 1
thought Cute must have assessed /
the place n business property. which |
il was not. aud il would lie a long |
time before il could he.
Milan AtwoOd's property at the |
corner Of First East and Second
south streets was valued by Cute at
SCI .000, while the county put It at
SIS. 600.
The following persons asked to
have their taxes RENTED on account /
OF inability To pay:
J. J. Wich, Nineteenth Ward. |
SlO.20; Mrs. 4. Jensen, Tenth |
warI, -; John Conlln, Nineteeuth |
wari; Mrs. Ericsson, Nineteenth /
Wand, $40 -.
This closel the work for the even
ing.
Returned Missionary.
Elder Justus =. jordan, Of Fair |
view, SanPete County, has just re-
turned from n mission. He left his I
home on the 5ih of Octo5er, lSss, !
and had bt en- labJring in the state /